LA Times: Fred lobbied for pro-choice group in 1991
posted at 8:43 pm on July 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Captain Ed’s sources tell him Fred did no such thing, that the extent of his involvement with the group would have been some perfunctory gladhanding at his firm’s meet and greets. Read the article, though. Seems pretty detailed.
I’m increasingly troubled by the possibility that the most stalwart pro-life candidate in the race might be John McCain.
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as a “pro-life” Republican, accepted a lobbying assignment from a family-planning group to persuade the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and five people familiar with the matter…
Judith DeSarno, who was president of the family planning association in 1991, said Thompson lobbied for the group for several months…
Former Rep. Michael Barnes of Maryland, a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said DeSarno had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work, and that he had suggested that she hire Thompson. He said it was “absolutely bizarre” for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.
“I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization,” said Barnes, a Democrat. “I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact.”
DeSarno said Thompson reported to her, after being hired, that he had held multiple conversations about the abortion “gag rule” with [John] Sununu, who was then the White House chief of staff and the president’s point man on the abortion rule…
At one of the meals, she recalled, Thompson re-enacted a cowboy death scene from one of his movies. She also remembered him telling her that Sununu had just given him tickets for a VIP tour of the White House for one of Thompson’s sons and his wife.
Both Sununu and Fred’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, deny he did anything for the group, with Corallo insisting that the extent of it would have been informal in-house consultations between Fred and whichever lawyer in the firm was in fact representing them. DeSarno and Barnes sound awfully sure, though. Captain Ed shrugs and points to pro-life voting record — but as we’ve seen, committed pro-life advocates want a true believer, not just someone who raises his hand when he has to. On the other hand, what are they going to do? Vote for Rudy? Exit question: Do I smell RINO?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 3 Next »
Uh … because you’re so … staunchly … uh …
Jaibones on July 6, 2007 at 8:47 PM
AP, you are pro-life? I’m kinda surprised.
Maybe you mentioned it before, but I always pegged you as pro-choice.
lorien1973 on July 6, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Huh, maybe that shine is going to wear off. Exit question answer: could be rino or perhaps elephant that follows the Crow method of bathroom etiquette.
Spirit of 1776 on July 6, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Shocking!!! The AP has a liberal bent?? Who would a thought it?
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on July 6, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Nah, I’m agnostic about it. What troubles me is that we’re going to lose the pro-life vote if one of these wafflers is nominated.
Allahpundit on July 6, 2007 at 8:52 PM
This is my favorite part. Might he mean, “as I weigh the political implications.”
Spirit of 1776 on July 6, 2007 at 8:55 PM
I do want a true believer, but given that every single
Republican that has a chance of winning, including John McCain, has some wavering on the issue, I’m willing to give Mr. Thompson a chance to explain. The fact is that every time there was a vote Thompson cast it for life. He also brought John Roberts up to the Senate to lobby for him and that is beginning to pay dividents. Come on Allah give the Senator a chance to explain. If he is lying, we’ll soon find out.
sophiesmom on July 6, 2007 at 8:55 PM
These could be evil forces rising up against Thompson.
Although, there are a lot of them.
Christoph on July 6, 2007 at 8:55 PM
As long as he fights the Islamofascists for real, the rest is secondary.
Without life, being either pro-life or pro-choice is made moot.
Defend our Civilization, and the people in it can argue about the merits of when the “soul” enters the body (if it does) and makes the tissue “human” (is it at birth, during the first breath [inspiration], as ancient cultures believed, or at the moment of the first union of the cells?).
First help us survive.
That’s who I’ll vote for.
profitsbeard on July 6, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Let’s assume we nominate a pro-choice candidate (or fred, who’s pro-choice lite let’s say). we could possibly get some other voters who are pro-choice and won’t vote for a pro-life guy.
I don’t like voters who aer single issue people (prolife/choice, etc). And don’t think we should nominate someone based upon them.
lorien1973 on July 6, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Heart-ache. Indeed, heart-ache.
JetBoy on July 6, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Besides, I rather have a man who has had two small children in the last couple of years and who has lost a child stand up for life. It seems to me that 1991 is 16 years ago; I’d hope over that time he’d become more pro life, not the other way around.
sophiesmom on July 6, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I’m not wrong about that am I; didn’t Fred Thompson lose a child to an illness.
sophiesmom on July 6, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Well, “boo-hoo” if you don’t like voters who are single issue people.
Would you advise Thompson or another RNC candidate taking that up as their new motto?
“That issue is really important to you? Well, I don’t like you.”
I vote on a variety of issues and this is only one. But it’s an acid test to me. Those who would cut up their own child, or allow others to do so to theirs, quickly lose my support.
Christoph on July 6, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Okay, somebody help me out here.
It is professionally ethical when a lawyer defends a serial killer but a professional lobbyist has to agree 100% with the client that hires him/her? What am I missing here?
Of course, AP is a bastion of objectivity and would never, ever, skew stories in a attempt to derail candidates that are gaining steam by a base constituency that has a different set of values than the socialists of the MSM, no?
highhopes on July 6, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Lose it to whom, pray tell?
Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, there’s no breathing room for single-issue voters who know that their issue can’t be affected much by the executive.
Anwyn on July 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Truer words never spoken, lol. Well said.
Spirit of 1776 on July 6, 2007 at 9:06 PM
I check it out and yes Fred Thompson did lose a child to an overdose. So he knows about loss and he knows about life. I’d say he’s most definately become more pro-lfe over the years. I’d say that shows maturity, not wavering or a pro-choice lite postion.
sophiesmom on July 6, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Fred! has described himself as a Federalist. The best thing that could happen would be to overturn Roe v. Wade and put the issue back into the hands of the States. Even if Thompson were a pro-abortionist (which I’m not saying he is) as long as he appoints Federalist judges who overturn Roe, that’s good enough for me.
jaime on July 6, 2007 at 9:13 PM
To whom? Hillary? Obama? The SC is one judge away from overturning Roe and the right to life lobby knows it.
I’ve been telling you all that the more you get to know Fred the more this stuff would be coming out. But did you listen?
It is fun watching the Fred groupies defend a guy for taking the same positions as people they were tossing under the bus a day ago. Time to get in the fight and debate, Fred, or continue to die the death of a thousand cuts.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Pro-life is a sign of wisdom.
Hening on July 6, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Look at Nixon’s SCOTUS choices. Look at goofy bitch Reagan put on the court. Rest my case.
warpmine on July 6, 2007 at 9:15 PM
I believe AP means that the pro-lifers will sit it out and not vote in the general.
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Fred! has his t’s crossed and his i’s dotted. All of this has come up before. The old media is playing catch up. They parry, he thrusts. This will not stick, much to their chagrin. He has already addressed this issue.
CrimsonFisted on July 6, 2007 at 9:20 PM
I gave up on the notion of a truly honest politician (q.v. both Presidents Bush), also among Republicans.
If Fred! lobbied for a pro-abortion group as part of his job sixteen years ago, so what? His voting record in the Senate is what counts. I’m persuaded it’s a waste of the right to vote if thinking and being motivated within the limits of a single issue.
Abortion is here to stay, whether many people like it or not. If a case comes before the SCOTUS that threatens Roe in any way, there will be scores of bills presented in every statehouse in the land within twenty-four hours of the Court’s announced willingness to hear it. Abortion will survive as a right with varying permissibility among the various states, which is where is should have been left in the first place.
Fred’s! detractors first tried the philandering angle, so now out comes this nothing matter for the second volley. I for one wouldn’t be surprised if some other thing down the line is that he once got drunk in high school. Or, unholy of unholies, he thought about smoking pot–nevermind that most of his detractors probably still do and want it legalized, to boot.
Liam on July 6, 2007 at 9:21 PM
This isn’t even a speedbump for the Fred! Express.
Hop on board or get the hell out of the way.
omnipotent on July 6, 2007 at 9:21 PM
His voting record speaks for itself. Every thing else is smoke filled coffee house bullsh!t.
TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2007 at 9:22 PM
He was smart to put out that video address re:topic the other day.
Spirit of 1776 on July 6, 2007 at 9:24 PM
The Captain sums it up pretty clearly right there.
omnipotent on July 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM
You’re a real life seer, Jack. What’s coming out next on Hillary? Rudy? McCain? Wait, forget McCain, noone cares.
I need to know, and can’t wait anymore.
BacaDog on July 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM
I assume you afford every candidate this luxury, yes?
Good. I so we can dispense with flip flopping garbage once and for all.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Just wait.. The press, acting as a Clinton, Inc operative is hot on the trail for Thompson dirt. They have already tried all of his ex-girl friends to no avail.
I think we have a candidate than can weather the storm. He is my man and I have given at Imwithfred.com and a bought shirts for my whole fam at tshirtpoll.com
TheSitRep on July 6, 2007 at 9:28 PM
I understand that you are claiming nothing other than a common sense evaluation of fred? and his checkered history and flip-flopping nature and have explained that many times to many groupies and they refuse to listen. It’s not like you claimed to be a seer.
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Well, there is that Ron Paul guy–you know, the consistently pro-life Member of Congress in his tenth term, a man who, after earning his M.D., practiced as a OB/GYN, delivering around 4000 babies during the course of his career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
But, seriously, he’s evil and everything; Hannity told me so.
tad on July 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM
I think he actually SPOKE TO A PRO CHOICER at a party once. Brrrrr!
The man is 100% voting for pro-life issues. THAT’S what counts.
Mojave Mark on July 6, 2007 at 9:32 PM
As long as we are going to debate how Mitt! supposedly treated his dog 25 years ago, we might as well discuss how freddie boy treated the unborn 16 years ago.
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Fred and Rudy may have flip-flopped on abortion, but McCain has been steady about amnesty. I’ll still go for one of the first two, before the third.
amerpundit on July 6, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Heh.
Yet, we can’t question anything Hillary has ever done.
BacaDog on July 6, 2007 at 9:38 PM
You assumption is noted however…
What about people, that are 3 or 4 main issue voters and can’t find a front-runner that supports all of them.
By the 3 or 4 issues I mean (not necessarily in order)….
1. Illegal Immigration
2. Gun Control (means having my finger on mime)
3. Pro-Life
4. GWOT
Rudy does not fit into 2 of them (maybe 3) as a result I will not vote for him even if he gets the nomination.
I could overlook Rudy because he is pro-choice (would be hard but I could) being anti-gun as well prevents me from supporting him in any way.
F15Mech on July 6, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Yes. She does seem to be Teflon coated doesn’t she?
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Missed one there, bud.
Spirit of 1776 on July 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Tad,
Is Ron Paul still lobbying congress to pull out of Iraq so al-Qaeda can take over?
bnelson44 on July 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Geez. 16 years ago, I was a registered Democrat. We change folks, we change.
Don’t forget taxes and/or fiscal restraint. That’s the #1 issue for me. If a candidate says the will raise taxes, they’re done for me, regardless of their other positions.
BacaDog on July 6, 2007 at 9:42 PM
“Is Ron Paul still lobbying congress to pull out of Iraq so al-Qaeda can take over?”
Oh snap! Heavens to Betsy, we couldn’t have that, now could we? The entire country could descend into a state of suicide bombing-plagued madness.
…
tad on July 6, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I’m more of a toucher but that’s a different story left to a more degenerate blog.
Actually, it’s just a matter of watching this game for years. Fred has spent more time as a lobbyist than a politician. He doesn’t even own a home in TN, he lives in McLean, VA and has for decades. He was John McCain’s co-chair in the last election and a huge champion of McCain/Feingold, one of the most heinous pieces of legislation to come along in decades. He was absolutely pro-choice in his early Senate runs and made no bones about it. He has almost no record to defend in the Senate because he did almost nothing. Eight years in the Senate and not a damn thing to hang his hat on. He has absolutely zero executive experience in any walk of life. He’s a federalist, well wake the baby and lets go party. Find a Republican who doesn’t claim to be a federalist. This is a savior?
Nobody here or anywhere for that matter has made a serious case for his candidacy along any factual lines. In fact, most have no clue who he is or what he stands for. They hear his podcasts which are perfectly crafted to fill the percieved void of the current crop of candidates and they think they are listening to Moses.
Fred has delayed getting in the race for one reason. He has nothing to run on except speeches and he knows it. He is a horrible extemporaneous speaker and there aren’t any cue cards in debates. He knows he’s a crappy candidate, y’all should too.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Not to suggest I’m sceptical but I’m tuned into the Dan Rather channel waiting for copies of DeSarno’s meeting minutes to be given to the public.
I wonder why Barnes would suggest Thompson. Did he know he was at least squishy such that handing it to him might actually DeSarno help more than real RINO lobbyists and ones who might have also been gun control advocates, seeing as how Barmes appears to have a penchant for those policies, too? I’d sure like to know how well Barnes knew Thompson that he would toss out his name out of the, what, hundreds he no doubt knew.
Exit Question 1: Will someone from the firm step up and take the credit for actually being the lobbyist?
Exit Question 2: Where’s the billing records!!!
Wikinote: Can someone tell when this abortion lobbying fact first got added to Thompson’s page?
Dusty on July 6, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Perhaps I’m unsophisticated and somewhat naive but for the life of me I cannot understand why a candidates view on abortion should be a hot button issue in a presidential campaign.
Scotus has already decided that Roe v Wade is the law, and the president can’t veto that. If he/she (POTUS) manages to load the high court with enough anti abortion justices to overturn Roe v Wade (possible but unlikely) then the whole issue reverts to states rights and each state’s laws on the matter will be reinstated.
This would drastically reduce if not eliminate any influence that the president has in this matter.
Oldnuke on July 6, 2007 at 9:53 PM
What’s going to hurt who more…that Fred may or may not have done this? Or that Giuliani is adamantly pro-choice?
JetBoy on July 6, 2007 at 9:54 PM
I never saw Mitt/Rudy claim to be Federalists. Could you post a link, please? That might make a difference to me. Were they members of the Federalist Society?
jaime on July 6, 2007 at 9:56 PM
I still can’t figure this out…for years now Tom Tancredo has been talking about border enforcement…I believe he was the first I ever saw on the tube, talking sense about the issue…Now some say that’s why he can’t win because he is a one-issue candidate…..I believe to fix that one single issue all the rest will fall in place…coupled with a quality cabinet, he will do a fine job..and he know’s how to work with congress…At least for his patriotic effort let’s give him some support..The heat he must have taken over the years from the well oiled elites, says we give him a chance…Beside’s most of these candidates get confused after 1 1/2 issues anyway..
Legions on July 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM
That’s the point I have been making also. Just study the guy and it’s obvious he is nothing but a midget with a megaphone standing behind a cardboard cut out of Ronald Reagan.
Did you know that fred? actually took credit for parts of a speech that Reagan gave? He has no proof, but fred? never lets facts stand in the way of the fakeries he perpetrates on the folks.
The rest of what you said is dead on about freds? complete lack of qualifications to be the chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth.
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Boy the Dems are running around like the sky is falling. They are firing all guns at Fred!. First the NYT, then boston Globe now the LAT.
Seems like Fred may just take away their populism trump card. They have expanded more effort on Fred in the last couple of weeks then they have on all the campiagn on McCain, Rudy and Mitt combined.
That in itself makes me want to vote for the man.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Happy to oblige. Please note, he didn’t just claim to be a federalist, he put his money where Fred’s mouth is.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Why are you complaining that fred? is now getting the scrutiny that the real rep candidates are getting?
The question is: How fast does fred? fall in the polls once the facts start piling up on him?
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I don’t care. He is my man and I am sticking to that. I took his statement about as time goes by to mean that he has made a transition down the road, as many of us have, to the true meaning of life and when it begins. Having his second family and young children of his own may have something to do with it, but it doesn’t matter. I believe him.
Glynn on July 6, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Thanks for posting this, JackStraw. And here was me thinking Mitt was an opportunist, not a federalist.
The part I found most interesting was: as he readies for a potential run for president
jaime on July 6, 2007 at 10:28 PM
That’s why he went to London and Israel. (did he make it to Israel?) Someone even claimed he was going to get Thatchers endorsement, but I haven’t heard the groupies crow about that so I figured it didn’t happen. His attempt to look like he had a grasp on foreign politics by traveling abroad (on the donations he fleeced from his supporters) was a miserable failure.
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 10:29 PM
I know it sounds a bit silly, but Rush Limbaugh is perfectly correct: some people are simply incapable of understanding the concept that “words mean things.”
They stare openmouthed at the notion that a grown person could actually be concerned about something as utterly irrelevant as his candidate’s POLITICS.
They dismiss it as a trivial nothing. “Federalism? Whatever; I’m sure they must be all be in favor of it – I mean, everybody is, more or less, right?”
Then they get back to the REAL issues:
“Just look at that jutting chin! Did you know he’s a billionaire?”
“So he really saved New York city from the terrorists – all by his lonesome?”
“I read in the LA times that ‘five people’ said Fred Thompson killed babies, and they called him and John Sununu liars. So there must be at least some truth to it.”
In their minds, THEY are the ones with a “real-world” understanding of the issues. And all our philosophical jibber-jabber may as well be sheep’s bleating.
I really think I should pay a lot more consideration to that sort of thing. From now on I’ll start staring intently and nodding my head gravely as I listen to their ever-so-serious concerns. People who live in a fantasy world need that kind of assurance from time to time.
logis on July 6, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I’d say Huckabee’s probably the most staunch pro-lifer in the field.
CP on July 6, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I’d be interested to see the time line between freds? pro-choice stance and his conversion to pro-life as he was entering politics.
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 10:35 PM
people do change opinions. I was pro-choice, you know none of my business, until I became pregnant. Right away it was a baby, not a fetus. As my mother in law said, abortion is legal, just admit that you are killing your baby. As much as I disagree with it, like Fred says, it should be left up to the states, like everything else.
ritemama on July 6, 2007 at 10:43 PM
It’s either Fred? or Mitt!
If either of them fails, I’m voting for Hillary. At least she’ll provide health care (even if it will drain the economy).
Darnell Clayton on July 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Do me a favor. Tell me your favorite Fred legislation. Tell me why you thought he was the man when he was just a Senator. Tell me what part of his executive experience makes you comfortable that he can handle the most demanding executive job in the world during a time of crisis and war. Tell me exactly why you are supporting Fred and think he is the best candidate to lead the free world.
I’ll wait. Google away.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Personally, I just don’t see where abortion should be such a huge issue at this point. I’m far more interested in the issues such as terrorism, illegal immigration and gun control. Admittedly, I’m pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean I’d refuse to vote for someone who’s pro-life, provided they had the right ideas on the immediate problems facing this country.
speed911 on July 6, 2007 at 10:46 PM
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Who’s complaining. We all know the MSM GOP canidate of choice is McCain. We also know that the Dems have Bloomberg in the wings to run if Rudy gets the nod.
We also know that Mitt and Fred are the two canidates that the MSM does not want to win. This tells us something right there.
Now when Fred starts to climb in the polls hard left media attacks him. These attacks appear to be coming from the Hillary camp. They would not start this early if they were not worried. The destruction of the McCain camp has made the Dems nervous. The Dems are scared that the christian right will go to the polls in 2008 unlike 2006. Every attack is aimed at that group to keep them home.
I mean it is so obvious a child could see it.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 10:50 PM
I’ll wait. Google away.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Instead of google try searching the Senate record. It has way more detail. Hell, it evens includes his exact words on why he supported or opposed a bill. Hint: you will not like the results.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Seems to me that unless they can find some actual documentation (like billing records, etc.) and NOT just the word of a committed Clinton supporter that he was involved, they have nothing. Fred should frame it that way and move on.
Warner Todd Huston on July 6, 2007 at 10:57 PM
I think Fred! has been a Federalist for quite a while. Below is an example I found from 1999.
Like I said in my post at jaime on July 6, 2007 at 9:13 PM, the best any pro-life advocate can hope for is for the POTUS to appoint Federalist judges to overturn Roe and send the issue back to the States.
jaime on July 6, 2007 at 10:58 PM
As far as record goes I could care less. I think a high school drop out could do a better job than most of our “leaders” are doing today. Bush is certainly not the brightest bulb in the room. Voinovich doesn’t even know what the hell a fairness doctronie is but it “sounds good” So what the hell does experience really mean in today’s world? It means you are bought and paid for is about all it means.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 11:00 PM
While this is from a pro-Fred site, it still should be looked at.
I have a feeling this is a Loose Change level distortion.
Apparently, according to the LA Grimes, the Beach Boys were all in on the Tate Murders, right?
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Hint, yes I will. Supporting is not the same as introducing. Fred scores a donut. Now why is that? Was he bereft of ideas? Lacking in conviction? Or just a lazy ass do nothing Senator who has zero executive experience.
Hey, did you know Fred scored a 33% from the National RIght to Life organization? I can keep whopping on you guys endlessly on this Fred thing. And its not cause I don’t think his trophy wife has a nice rack. She does.
I want someone who can actually win the election as opposed to you Obama Girls who just get all jiggity about the next messiah.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I don’t really need to Google anything. For me, Federalism is the main issue in domestic politics. The more a candidate wants to do for me, the faster I run in the other direction. The federal government should do very little, domestically, as far as I’m concerned. You, on the other hand appear to like big government.
As far as executive experience… Carter, Clinton.
jaime on July 6, 2007 at 11:10 PM
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 9:47 PM
How un-Fred! of you.
I think the thing that most people are missing about the Fred picture is his strong, very strong, stance on federalism. He wants almost everything to be left to the states, or, even better, the counties and cities. I believe that is guiding light of conservatism. We can argue all day about immigration and GWOT and other serious issues that only the national government can be responsible for (even if they rarely are). I believe that Fred’s supposed pro-choice bias early in his career is a misreading of his intentions. He simply did not want the Federal Government to pass laws of this type. He believed, as I believe, that these issues are better handled on state level. It is inevitably the lefties who want to legislate everything in this ridiculously large country from a few square miles on the east coast. I say, send Fred Dalton Thompson to the Whitehouse in ‘08, and he will return to you the power of self government.
VolMagic on July 6, 2007 at 11:11 PM
want someone who can actually win the election as opposed to you Obama Girls who just get all jiggity about the next messiah.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:05 PM
And who would that be?
As far as the record:
Well it could be that Fred thinks the Senate should concentrate on core issues and leave the rest of the bullsh** to the States where it belongs. A failure to offer tons of bills in the Senate to a federalist is not a negative it is a big fat positive.
Next….
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 11:12 PM
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Now you’re just being mean.
VolMagic on July 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM
If either of them fails, I’m voting for Hillary. At least she’ll provide health care (even if it will drain the economy).
Darnell Clayton on July 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Don’t worry it won’t drain anything cause it’s all pie in the sky… The Demos after they win, will sit back and gladly let the Republicans kill it in whatever way they can… Everyone’s off the hook and history repeats itself. And all have a great big sigh of relief..
Legions on July 6, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Darnell Clayton on July 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
you want to solve healthcare? You pass a law requiring all citizens to have healthcare much like car insurance. Everyone is covered and the premiums go down. End of story. want to make it better for the poor increase Medicare or give a tax credit. It is the simple and easy answers that congress fails to find because no one can get votes out of simple easy answers.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 11:18 PM
You say this in jest, right?
“Well, you know, when either or both of my epicene, flip-flopper candidates founder, I’ll probably just vote for socialism and its untenable “spoils”–which, in the absence of redistributism, normal people tend to provide for by seeking out, uh, gainful employment, community assistance, church benevolence, charitable altruism or any combination of the aforementioned–instead, regardless of silly things like “costs.”
tad on July 6, 2007 at 11:21 PM
That could be the lamest, most unconvincing arguement ever spoken since Icarus swore he was just taking the wings out for a low level test flight. He did nothing for 8 years as a sneaky smart plot to prove he was all about states rights? My god, the man should be running Spectre.
Let’s see, we now have all those who bashed Rudy and Mitt as flip floppers or at worst, pro-choice, saying the issue doesn’t matter. Two men, mind you, who have actually run states or cities larger than most states. Men who actually practised states rights and fought battles against the inane laws inacted by the feds. But thats not good enough for you guys who just know some obscure 1+ term Senator who is most famous for acting is the most qualified man to run the free world.
Why don’t I find you guy persuasive? Gosh, this is a mystery.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:24 PM
tad on July 6, 2007 at 11:21 PM
If hillary wins I’m going into government work. It will be the only thing left after about 2 years.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 11:24 PM
S. 3040 (IS) Privacy Commission Act (Introduced in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 16
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/09/13
Committee: Senate Governmental Affairs
There goes Jack Strawman’s doghnut!
That took all of 90 seconds to search Thomas. WOW! Tough doing the research, ain’t it?
Now please stop lying and be sensible. This attack-dog crap should be directed outward, not inward.
You and CSdevin need to stop with the groupie/fanboy slurs. It’s getting old. I promise to avoid calling you turkeys Mobys or deranged in the fututre if you agree to end the general slurs on anyone who supports Fred. Maybe then we can get down to cases.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 6, 2007 at 11:26 PM
This is the first I’ve heard that Hillary is behind this. Do you have a connection that you can cite?
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 11:27 PM
It’s appalling how many people today – on both sides of the isle – equate political effectiveness with execution. We really don’t need any more Five Year Plans here in America. We need somebody to pull the reins in, not to spur government on.
And, btw, do we really have more than one person here who’s spouting the same bizarre “executive experience” catchphrases? Seriously, what are the odds of that? Where the Hell does that kind of crap even come from?
logis on July 6, 2007 at 11:29 PM
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:24 PM
It appears that you have no idea what federalism is. Maybe you think it’s like communism where you control every minute details. Or maybe you think it is like socialism where the government does not trust its people to do the most basic things without a law saying to do it. Or maybe you think it is like liberalism where the government is a supposed “force of good” and the more laws the merrier.
I would be hard pressed to name many great accomplishments of the the Congress in the last 60 years. The voter rights act and the military are about it.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 11:30 PM
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Oh come on. You aren’t that dense are you?
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Mobys. You can tell from the froth on their lips.
jaime on July 6, 2007 at 11:36 PM
You should be embarrassed, I’m sure you aren’t.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 851
To establish a commission to conduct a study of government privacy practices, and for other purposes.
Yes, Fred was the co-sponsor of a bill to create a commission to study governement. The sum total of 8 years work. Oh my Hitchens. Let’s just suspend the primary season and anoint Fred.
What the hell is the matter with you people? Do you not want to put our best candidate in the race? Fred has been running a proxy race for months where he justs throws his 2 cents in the ring and doesn’t have to face any hard questions. This is how you want to select your candidate?
Yes, lets do that. Then we can all sit around 4 years from now wondering how we have a President who is doing all kinds of crazy crap we never expected.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Check the 106th
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 6, 2007 at 11:41 PM
S. AMDT. 4279 To provide a complete substitute.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/09/28
Committee:
S. AMDT. 4132 To provide for the application of certain measures to covered countries in response to the contribution to the design, production, development, or acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise missiles.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/09/13
Committee:
S. AMDT. 3472 To reform Government information security by strengthening information security practices throughout the Federal Government.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 7
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/06/19
Committee:
S. AMDT. 3392 To refine and advance Federal acquisition streamlining.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 3
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/06/14
Committee:
S. AMDT. 3290 To prohibit the use of funds for the transfer of a veterans memorial object to a foreign country or entity controlled by a foreign government.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/06/13
Committee:
S. AMDT. 3250 To provide compensation and benefits to Department of Energy employees and contractor employees for exposure to beryllium, radiation, and other toxic substances.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 13
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/07/11
Committee:
S. AMDT. 2317 To permit the Mayor to prioritize the making or amount of tuition and fee payments based on the income and need of eligible students, to include historically Black colleges and universities in the definition of schools eligible to participate in the program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 4
Chamber: Senate
Date: 1999/10/19
Committee:
S. AMDT. 2292 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 1999/10/13
Committee:
S. AMDT. 2290 To make certain technical and conforming amendments, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 1999/10/08
Committee:
S. AMDT. 428 To refine and extend Federal acquisition streamlining.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 3
Chamber: Senate
Date: 1999/05/27
Committee:
S. AMDT. 249 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 1999/03/25
Committee:
S. 3199 (IS) To amend section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 to provide for a user fee to cover the cost of customs inspections at express courier facilities. (Introduced in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/10/12
Committee: Senate Finance
S. 3144 (PCS) To amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to establish police powers for certain Inspector General agents engaged in official duties and provide an oversight mechanism… (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/10/03
Committee: Senate Governmental Affairs
S. 3040 (IS) Privacy Commission Act (Introduced in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 16
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/09/13
Committee: Senate Governmental Affairs
S. 3030 (RS) To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for executive agencies to conduct annual recovery audits and recovery activities, and for other purposes. (Reported in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 1
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/10/12
Committee: Senate Governmental Affairs
S. 3030 (IS) To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for executive agencies to conduct annual recovery audits and recovery activities, and for other purposes. (Introduced in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 1
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/10/12
Committee: Senate Governmental Affairs
S. 2805 (IS) Federal Property Asset Management Reform Act of 2000 (Introduced in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 1
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/06/28
Committee: Senate Governmental Affairs
S. 2752 (PCS) Accountability to Congress for Nuclear Transfers to North Korea Act of 2000 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 0
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/06/20
Committee:
S. 2712 (RS) Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (Reported in Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 1
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/11/22
Committee: Senate Governmental Affairs, House Government Reform, House Government Management, Information and Technology (GMIT)
S. 2712 (RFH) Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (Referred to House Committee after being Received from Senate)
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred
Cosponsors: 1
Chamber: Senate
Date: 2000/11/22
Committee: Senate Governmental Affairs, House Government Reform, House Government Management, Information and Technology (GMIT)
Need I go on, Strawman?
Whilt Thompson’s work in the Senate was not flashy or sexy, he did a great deal of the nuts-and-bolts type of work that belies the “lazy” lie you keep spewing.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Again who is the best canidate in your view?
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM
You now have the opportunity to produce a post where you were accused of being something you are not.
And freddie boys silly legislation that never went anywhere is not a glowing record to hang his candidacy hopes on. Really, what did the guy actually accomplish while in the senate? When did he make a difference that we can point to other than that fiasco POS legislation called McCain/Feingold?
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Random,
I did the same think in a post last week. It took very little time reading the Senate Record to understand Fred’s views. I don’t think it matters to the ANTI-fredheads. They do not want a federalist in the WH. They would rather have a social liberal it appears.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Where is the connection? I read nothing in that article that said Hillary was involved. I figure you must have something you can link to.
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Then there’s S. 1490, Tax Deduction Fairness Act of 1999
S. 1466 Taxpayer’s Defense Act
S. 1214 Federalism Accountability Act of 1999
And the hits keep comin’!
I can do this all night, anyone game to tell me again how “lazy” Thompson is?
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 6, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Yes. You need to tell me which is your favorite. Would it be
or could it be
Also, I would like a complete list of which of these earth shattering issues you personally supported and why. Oh, and as a follow up, which actually became law.
Google dude. Stop wasting time here.
At this point, Romney and its not close. But its early yet. We have months and many debates and plenty of time to chose. Fred isn’t a candidate, ask him. I will not give any credit to a guy who sits on the sidelines and pretends he’s sort of a candidate when it suits his needs but hides from the heavy lifting. I want someone who can actually lead this country not just an empty suit who schemes the best way to get elected.
I’m actually shocked more of you guys don’t want that.
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I only heard that term recently. Sounds crazy as Hell, but it explains so much.
If you rattle their cages long enough, they’ll (grudgingly) spew out a name. But it’s all ad hoc. I see no evidence of constructive intent whatsoever.
I mean, are there psychos out there claiming to be Republicans who do nothing but mindlessly rain crap on Huckabee or Romney? If so, I haven’t seen it.
Still, it seems a bit early for the Hillary Youth to start focusing on one guy like this. My guess is it’s liberaltarians who are scared to death of any non-psychotic competition.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 12:00 AM
I stand corrected.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 12:02 AM
csdeven on July 6, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Yeah Hillary put it on her blog.
I take it “connect the dot diagrams” didn’t go so well for you in kindergarten.
but if you want some links try this:
In the story that the L.A. Times will report out within the next 24 to 48 hours, the paper will claim that Thompson was “hired” by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association, whose director, Judith DeSarno, was acquainted with a then-partner at Arent Fox, former Congressman Michael Barnes. In fact, DeSarno worked as a senior aide to Barnes during his time in Congress. According to Arent Fox insiders, Barnes, who now directs the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and DeSarno are both well-known left-wing activists. Most recently, both were active against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Thompson was an adviser to Roberts, and served as his Senate “sherpa” during the confirmation process.
As well, as Thompson has continued to rise in the polls, left-wing groups have been looking for ways to ding Thompson, hitting him on lobbying stories for weeks, to little effect.
According to sources at a rival paper, the L.A. Times has been working with the pro-abortion group for some time on a Thompson lobbying story, but with little success until now. “We started hearing about it several days ago,” says a Washington-based reporter for another West Coast paper. “These abortion groups have been pushing reporters to look into Thompson’s past, but haven’t had much to go on. You talk to these guys and you can tell that he makes them nervous. They know how he voted and where he stands.”
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11689
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Can anyone explain how to put the dark bar on the left side of a column or sentence I drag down ??.. I know how to drag it down, just can’t figure out how to highlight it..makes it easier for all to surf comments.
Legions on July 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Frankly, Strawman, you are doing Romey no favors, here.
Your unhinged attacks (trophy wife?) are not what one Republican should say about a fellow in the party if you want to bring enough people together to actually, you know, win the general. If you keep up these slash-and-burn tactics to destroy the others in the primary, you can forget about support in the general.
At least stick to honest disagreement, not the BS you’ve been spewing.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 7, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »