LA Times: Fred lobbied for pro-choice group in 1991
posted at 8:43 pm on July 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I notice how some of you have already started with your childish school yard insults. It’s clear that you have nothing left with which to defend the guy.
Thanks for conceding the point.
NEXT!
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:07 AM
JackStraw on July 6, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Mitt’s a fine choice. Fred is a good choice also. I see no reason to tear down any GOP canidate except maybe McCain. He is like the manchruian canidate for the left.
I think a Fred/Mitt ticket would be a good one.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:09 AM
fredie boy?
fan boy?
groupie?
BwwwwAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!
IT HURTS!!!!!!
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 7, 2007 at 12:10 AM
I have to admit that I used to fall on the pro choice side of the fence but that ended the day I saw where a local abortion doctor had dumped aborted babies in a field. It was murdered babies from that second onward, not medical waste and absolutely not anything that a person should have the right to make a choice to kill. I guess that was the day that I added social conservative to my existing fiscal conservative views.
I view this latest hit on Fred as little or nothing but if it was, where would that leave us? We know that Rudy says he’s pro choice but would appoint pro life people to SCOTUS, Mitt has changed his views from pro choice to pro life apparently over time, forget McCain his campaign is dead in the water over ShAmnesty and he couldn’t get elected dog catcher anywhere from now on. Hunter and Tancredo are solidly pro life but can they win? Huckabee isn’t even on my radar and I have no idea about the others, they’re getting no air. Ron Paul, I have a feeling that antenna will sprout from his head before the primary and he’ll get beamed back up.
Where will it leave us to pick this topic to bash our candidates over the head with…. Hillary or Obama, who are loving it. I’ve decided to take Fred, Rudy, and Mitt’s word on their pro life stance and move onward.
Buzzy on July 7, 2007 at 12:11 AM
LOL!! Now that’s funny!
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 12:12 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Oh I see I give you the “evidence” and you attack the messenger. Face it. These attacks are coming from the left (i.e Hillary). If you really “need” a smoking gun to tell you that I think you are not being honest.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:15 AM
OK, now I’m confused again. Just when he seems so obvious, he goes and makes everything even simpler all of a sudden.
I mean I have never, in my whole life, ever, seen a moonbat throw a hysterical “why me?” hissy fit before.
Could it be? For the first time in history, it goes and happens right now?
Seriously, what are the odds on that?
logis on July 7, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Finally. Now really, how tough was that? Your connections to Hillary are specious at best, but this accusation is consistent with freddie boys pro-choice stance in 1994, so even if no smoking gun is found, we still have the questionaire he filled out proudly proclaiming he supported all abortion in the first trimester. A questionaire that he blamed on someone else. hahaha Yeah, another one of freds? shameless fakeries to manufacture this BS image he has created.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:21 AM
I think the Fred! supporters have been pretty clear that they want less government. They’ve also been clear that the Carter/Clinton argument for executive experience is not convincing.
You and Jack continue to demand examples of more government (I suppose you think the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 would have been an accomplishment), and executive experience.
I’ve lost interest in debating you because you haven’t backed up your arguments with examples of more government is better government, nor have you explained why Carter was a shining example of executive experience.
If you would please compare your candidate’s positions with Fred!’s, and explain why they’re better I’ll be happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise, what more is there to say? It’s hard to convince a big-government social liberal like youself that Fred! is a good candidate. We feel like we’re wasting our time.
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Jesus Christ, that’s about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Couple of problems with that suggestion:
1. Let’s apply to healthcare the same government regulations governing motor vehicle operation, given that, I mean, they’re just working out grandly, aren’t they? Presumably, you believe that no one drives without a license or insurance, right? But HOW CAN THEY? THE GOVERNMENT PASSED A LAW!!!! OMGWTFBBQ! Presumably, you also believe that no commits homicide, since there’s a pretty obvious legal proscription against taking the lives of others.
2. How do you intend to enforce the directive mandating that all citizens “must have” health insurance? How about for the homeless? They have no money; they live on the friggin’ streets, for Christ’s sake. Is the federal government going to send out the health insurance version of an ATF S.W.A.T. team to check hobos for health insurance and then, upon finding out (SURPRISE SURPRISE!) that crazy drug addicts who live on the street don’t have health insurance, throw them in jail for their egregious lack of having insurance despite the magical law demanding that they do so?
3. Coming from someone who, I presume, is a Republican–the putative party of personal responsibility, small government and deregulation–are you really caused so very little compunction by your advocating that the government should both pry into the lives of its citizens and, presumably (for it would require either the establishment of an additional government agency or an increase in those funds annually allocated to an existing agency), increase the size and scope of government?
Here’s how to “fix” healthcare:
1. Stop trying to “fix” healthcare. Stop promoting these ridiculous and quixotic notions that poverty will be eliminated–a notion to which even most “conservative” politicians will, if not actually believing it, at least pay lip service. There will always exist some people whose unfortunate existence on this mortal coil will be spent in a state of abject poverty, a condition resulting from their bad judgment, lack of natural ability or just plain misfortune. In the United States, the majority of our inhabitants, citizen and non-citizen alike, possess a standard of living that has been unparalleled throughout 99.9% of human history, and is better than the circumstances in which 90% of the Earth’s population live. Let’s stop whining about it.
2. Deregulate healthcare. There is no reason why–as is the case now–M.D.s should be the only people allowed by law to practice medicine. Nurses can treat at least 75% of routine healthcare needs (and consider, too, that many health problems can be avoided through either detection or maintenance healthcare). A clinic staffed only by nurses, though it would offer more basic healthcare and with less expertise than would be offered by a M.D.-staffed office, would be cheaper by far than one staffed by doctors. Instead of a visit to the “doctor’s office” costing $45, a visit to a nurse-run “health clinic” might cost as little as $15 dollars, thereby allowing the poor and working people to partake in a healthcare system from which they were previously excluded.
Doctors are like the Volvos of the healthcare industry: they’re very good, but they cost a lot, too. If tomorrow the government wanted to raise the safety level of those vehicles allowed on the road–an idea that seems to parallel their thinking that only doctors should be allowed to practice medicine–the government would announce that people can drive only Volvos on the roads. So, yah, automotive safety and quality would sky-rocket; but relatively very few people, in comparison to all the people that previously could drive any old car (hunks of junk included), would be able to afford to drive.
tad on July 7, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Still waiting for you to provide a link where you were singled out and called a fan boy or groupie. And unless you are freddie boy himself, you have no business being upset by it.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:26 AM
I assume you’re blocking out Ron Paul altogether? ‘Cause I plan to keep ripping the Hell out of him.
As for McCain, he was never a possibility as a Republican candidate. Some states actually redid all their primary rules to keep him from pulling the crap he pulled in 2000. His campaign was DOA. That was a complete Democrat fantasy.
Giuliani seems to be personally a stand-up guy, but so was Bush. I’m just sick to death of the idea of spending another six years having to defend somebody I only agree with half the time. What worries me about Rudy, even as a backup candidate, is how much the media have been pushing him since two years before the election. I find it really hard to believe they’ve been propping him up because they really believe he’s the “Only Man Who Can Defeat Hillary.”
logis on July 7, 2007 at 12:26 AM
How do you get that from my post at 12:07?
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Let the group know when you’re ready to come back to the adult table and use your big boy mouth.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Hey dickhead, you don’t mind me calling you that do you? You seem ok with pretending you’re oh so witty with the strawman thing and I don’t have the time or the inclination to do you the same service. I’ll just cut through the nicities and call you what you are inferring, dickhead.
I have watched for months commenters and posters in this place slam the hell out of Romney, Rudy, McCain,,, every Republican candidate, except Fred (PBUH). Fred is a pro-choice, pro-McCain/Feingold, DC insider, lobbyist who was a co-chair of McCain’s last presidential race. He, by his own admission, has a limited and undistinguished record in the Senate. He claims as his greatest accomplishment being against Democrats. You know absolutely nothing about the man other than what you have googled or read here. Yet, you claim he is the bestest, most conservativist, greatest guy evah!
This place has served as a ripping ground for every Republican candidate in the race, yet only Fred (PBUH) is supposed to be above criticism? Romney gets whacked because he is a mormon and that makes him unacceptable to conservative christians but Fred..yada yada… gets an ok because post after post talks about his manliness about reeling in a much younger wife after dumping his first one cause, why? Rudy is unacceptable to many conservatives because of his divorces but Fred, well he has a red pickup!
Here’s an honest disagreement for you. Fred has accomplished squat in the Senate. He has a much longer record as a DC insider and an actor than anything else. He is not a declared candidate for the sole reason of positioning himself. You know absolutely nothing about the guy and you are cheering him on like a 14 year old cheerleader chasing the QB on the JV football team. I want the best candidate to win. You want to be one of the kool kidz.
That ain’t bs.
JackStraw on July 7, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Solipism, csdevin.
You have been using groupie, fanboy, and supporter interchangeably for weeks and have made no distinction between the terms.
Please be honest for once in your pathetic little life!
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 7, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Ah, the pro-lifers. The only group in the world where 99.9% loyalty just isn’t enough.
Jim-Rose on July 7, 2007 at 12:40 AM
“This topic?” What in the heck does that have to do with the bashing? I can’t even hazard a guess as to what – if anything – may be engaging these guy’s brains, but I guarantee you it has nothing to do with what’s written in these articles.
It’s been the same in the last few dozen Fred! topics. The New York Times could run a headline: “Fred Thompson Suspected to Have Farted!” and you’d see another twenty copies of the exact same crap dished out all over again.
By now he’s made HUNDREDS of posts. But guess what? None of us evil and “immature” Fred Thompson supporters has ever responded to even ONE of them.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 12:41 AM
tad on July 7, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Do you drive without insurance? In my state without insurance I lose my plate and get fined. With the vast majority being insured the rates are kept low. Since everyone has to have it there is a ton of competition. I am not limited to the ones my employers mandate. I can pick and choose what type of coverage I want and what type of deductible.
Healthcare is the same. The problem with healthcare today is a large portion of the population does not have it or is funded by the government or an employer. There is no market in it. There is no competition, rates for the self insured are very high because of this. If you are not paert of a “group” you can not get good deals because the health insurance companies do not want to waste time on you.
Pass a law giving a tax credit for health insurance premiums, pass a law saying it is mandatory that everyone have some type of health insurance. Enforce it by fines. If someone does not have health insurance and is fined withhold their tax return check to cover the fine and any outstanding hospital/doctors bills. Use the fines to help pay for those that are on government healthcare programs.
If you increase the demand for healthcare, and increase the supply of programs the price of premiums falls. The market will sort out all the details. It is the governments job to provide the market not control it.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:46 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Aww shucks. I was just defending you on the other Thompson post. Seriously, Fred must have done something to you personally. Did he pull a Mitt on your dog? :(
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 12:47 AM
The New York Times could run a headline: “Fred Thompson Suspected to Have Farted!” and you’d see another twenty copies of the exact same crap dished out all over again.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 12:41 AM
LOL you hit that nail on the head.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:48 AM
None of these guys are pro-lifers. And I’ve never actually met anyone who’s in that “group” you’re talking about.
Don’t let the liberals suck you in. Everytime they publish another one of these moronic hit pieces, they’re thinking: “What’s WRONG with you pro-life nutjobs? You’re all supposed to run out and pick up torches and pitchforks and demand Republican X’s head on a platter at the first hint of impurity!”
But it never actually seems to work that way.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Jim-Rose on July 7, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Umm… so what is 0.1% of 45 million? 45,000?
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I know Jack has addressed the federalism argument, but for me it’s your straw man. I am still waiting for the fred? supporters to deal with his history without pulling the absolute moral authority federalism card.
The guy said he supported abortion, ALL abortion in the first trimester. That is pro-choice. Now he claims to be pro-life. If his original stance is federalism in nature, why has he backed away from his pro-choice opinions and now demands to be considered pro-life?
As bad as Carter was, he would have been way worse if he only had the experience of 6+ piss poor years in the senate.
First, you are seriously misguided if you think I am a big government social liberal. That is another straw man you have created in your own mind because that is the only person you think you can defeat with your federalist mantra. You seem to think that because someone doesn’t buy into freds? BS that they must be that which you despise.
I don’t like fred? because as a principled conservative, I am offended, no, I am disgusted by freddie boys disrespect to basic conservative values. He lies. He fakes out his supporters. He uses his kids as political props to lie about his pro-choice past. He chose to lobby for unscrupulous companies that sought to screw American citizens out of the settlements they deserved. He plays games with his announcement date. He brags about his poll numbers like a AA ball player bragging that he has more homers than a major leaguer.
On top of that, he did nothing of note in the senate, EXCEPT for McCain/Feingold. He has been an actor and lobbyist longer than a public servant. He has zero, nil, nada, no executive experience whatsoever. He cannot articulate ideas unless they are scripted just like his TV and movie rolls. His interviews were absolutely dismally pathetic. He has to refer to his notes when he is asked about his core beliefs. THAT’S a BS artist in action.
You cannot possible link all that to his so called federalist stance.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:50 AM
You’ll have to clarify that, because that 12:30 post was the response to one of the several children here who cannot get through a thread without revealing themselves as vacuous children who surf the net looking for opportunities to act like an immature recalcitrant punks.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:53 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Hey I liked his interviews.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:53 AM
You just seems to be coming down hard on Fred supporters as well as Fred himself. If Fred is as bad as you say he is, then we, his supporters, will eventually see the light.
We not the dum-dums. We sees what we likes and we likes what we sees. :)
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Yeah I heard Fred is signing the cave-man from geico to be his manager. Cool one of us made it.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM
I sure have made the distinction, more than once. You just didn’t see it. And your assumption says more about you than it does about me.
Still waiting for you to produce the post where you specifically were called “fan boy” or “groupie”. C’mon, it can’t be that tough. You obviously wouldn’t convince yourself that I said that if it didn’t happen. I just want you to produce it so I can apologize. I am very careful not to single people out that way, so I am always concerned if I do and didn’t realize it.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I understand, and I come down hard on the groupies, not your run of the mill fred? supporter. I’m sure you have seen the many immature people using personal attacks against me claiming I called them a groupie, yet not one can produce a post where I did.
All I can figure is that they know they are groupies and are embarrassed by it., because I never accused them. I criticize groupies, and we can all agree that those with the groupie mentality need to be scrutinized. Now if one of these people know they fit that discription and get offended, then that is their problem. And interestingly, they have outed themselves as groupies when I have no clue who are and are not groupies.
So, you see, I have no sympathy for people who haven’t figured out that words mean things.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:07 AM
So? Why should the self-proclaimed Arbiter of Intellectual Maturity care about a piddling response like that?
That’s NOTHING. Stretch it out into about eight or ten paragraphs, then cut and repaste it a dozen times to every article about Fred Thompson that comes up – no matter what it’s about.
Then, young Padawan, you will finally be on equal terms with the mighty CS!
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:07 AM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Oh them. Ya know, I love ‘em like brothers, but on Fred threads ya just gotta put some folks on ignore.
As for me, I would love to debate health care but I promised someone I would stay on topic at least part of the time.
Buzzy on July 7, 2007 at 1:08 AM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Well I liked his interviews. And the force is strong in me. The question is did Fred spend anytime alone with the THING in Anarctica? I’m sure that will be the headline in the NYT come Monday.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Buzzy on July 7, 2007 at 1:08 AM
Yeah staying on topic is hard at times.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 1:13 AM
I appreciate you taking the time to respond in a thoughtful manner, csdeven. I’ll try to do the same, although I’m not going to touch on all your points. I’ll just stick to the pro-life issue if that’s OK with you.
I’m not a huge fan of dogma. If someone wants to be pro-abortion, well, I don’t agree with it. But my main concern is results. I’ve said this, or something like it, a couple of times in this thread:
In my opinion, Roe has the best chance of being overturned by Fred! because he’s a Federalist. I think that, no matter what Fred!’s opinions are on abortion, he is the one most likely to appoint judges who will overturn it. My focus is on the results we are likely to see if any of these candidates are elected POTUS.
That is the point that you have not responded to. Can you show that the likelihood of Roe being overturned is greater with Mitt being elected than Fred! being elected?
It seemed to me that a do-nothing Senate record and lack of executive experience were your strawmen to avoid answering this.
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 1:13 AM
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 1:13 AM
After Myers is there any chance at all that a GOP President would not appoint an originalist onto the court?
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 1:15 AM
I am sure you liked them for reasons that resonate for you. That’s great. I see it and hear it also, but I think it’s an act. I would encourage you to watch them again and look for the patterns of deception and generalization that he uses to answer questions. Those generalizations are designed to allow each individual person to fill in the specifics of what he means. If he can get ten people with 10 different understandings of his generalizations, then he has ten supporters that are committed because they fulfilled their desires themselves.
IE. fred? likes to say things like this….
“We all know what the problem is with ______________ (fill in with any issue)is.”
This is designed to get each person to define what that means without fred? having to take a hard stance.
My first thought is….Really fred?, tell me what you think, because I already know what I think and I want to know if you agree with me.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Vol, I wasn’t joking before. I hate to be demanding, but I’m afraid I really will have to see that link you were talking about.
I’m telling you: this guy doesn’t just “not like” someone – he is a raving lunatic. There’s a bit of a difference there.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:16 AM
That’s what I’m talking about. You don’t single out, you use the broad brush. That way you insult all while claiming not to insult any. Anyone who responds specifically is then the instigator.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 7, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Of course. And I’m sure that Fred Thompson is also trying to hypnotise us all with the patterns in his ties too.
Seriously, is there anything like a moderator around here?
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:21 AM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Heh. I’m a complete noob at the internet in general and HA in particular, but I would invite you to spend some time in the threads about the GWOT or the skeeziness of Democrats, and I think csdeven and you would get along just fine.
As long as there was no possible Fred tangent.
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Yes, I’m afraid there is. I’m thinking Rudy is so socially liberal that he wouldn’t know an originalist if it bit him. Mitt’s prior active support for abortion, and the fact that he’s an opportunist of the first degree, doesn’t give me any confidence. I’ve yet to see anything from Mitt to make me think he’s trustworthy.
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 1:33 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:16 AM
While I understand where you are coming from I really think you are missing the point.
I have said this before but let me repeat it. I am not a Fred supporter yet. I am leaning towards him.
The point is Fred’s campaign is focused on a set of “first principles” (these include limited government, federalism, and the fact that the federal governmet should only be concerned about certain things) These points of views of his are backed up from his Senate speeches and his blogs. They are not pulled out of the air. He does not have a white paper on every policy question. If you listen to his interviews with this “first principles” in mind his statements become very detailed and not generalizations. For those people that like very specific speeches and interviews I could see where you would be scratching your heads.
I would rather know the thought process of the person than the specific answer. For instance when I first heard compassionate conservatism I thought “liberalism” and “not Reagan” and “like his father”. Sadly these first thoughts were proven correct.
When Hillary got up and talked about a ” shared responsibility for shared prosperity” society and a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” I think socialism/communism.
With Fred I hear “first principles” and think federalism/freedom/small government.
With the others I hear “I will do this and that and blah, blah, blah. They have not showed me an underlining belief system in there speeches and thus I am only able to conclude that they will govern whichever way the winds are blowing at the time.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I am a federalist also when it comes to abortion, but abortion sickens me.
My problem with fred? begins way before I can get to his politics. His character is in question for me. He lies. That is the first no-no. I cannot abide a liar. fred? has had the opportunity to clear it up, but he refuses to get in the race. This is the second issue I have with him. Any real conservative would respect conservative values and not play games with his announcement date. He has used every excuse in the book, from his TV contract, to feeling for support, and now he is just arbitrarily changing from the 4th, to the 11th, or maybe the third week in July. This is an insult to my conservative values. Newt has told us exactly when he will announce if he decides to run. If fred? respected any of us, he would do us the courtesy of the same type of announcement.
Then there is his record. Some of it looks good, but I don’t view them in a vacuum. His voluntary involvement as a lobbyist for certain causes is also insulting to my conservative values.
So, in conclusion, yes, I hear fred?, and I get the excitement. But I don’t allow my emotions to over-rule the proper vetting of a possible candidates positions. I’ve been fooled before and I know what to look for. fred? has all the symptoms, and the second he gets into a real live unscripted debate, I believe his true self will emerge and I am pretty sure it’s going to be the exact opposite of the image he has been trying to create.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Where did I use the broad brush, and where did it include you?
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:35 AM
I’m starting to think that would include any word with the letter ‘F’ in it.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on July 6, 2007 at 11:26 PM
It’s never ever going to happen, neither one of them has the ethical character required to do so. They are as intellectually dishonest and disingenuous as any rabid liberal posting at DU dKoS Huffpo or MoveOn.org.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 1:37 AM
I do spend a lot of time on other topics, but lately the fred? stuff has been such juciy, juciy, red meat, I just can’t stop. ;-)
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:38 AM
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I sorry I wasn’t clear. Would any GOP President take the chance and go against his base on this issue understanding what it cost Bush. The two times Bush went against his base his poll numbers tanked and he lost key Congressional support and voter support.
No GOP President would do that again IMO knowing full well what it would cost him. ESP in a first term.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 1:39 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Translated: I’m a big fat liar and will say anything if I think it will advance my argument…….
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Well said, unseen.
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 1:42 AM
You and I are not that far apart on our views of fred?. EXCEPT, as I pointed out in a post just above this one, his personal character is the first thing he has to convince me of. He so far isn’t even trying. And as a matter of fact, what I see are just a bunch of empty rhetorical pod casts and scripted speeches. Anyone can say those things (and many already have), but without the context of his real self, it means nothing. He could go a long way in showing his character by respecting us as true conservatives and announcing a date that he will announce. I don’t care if it is 4 months out as long as he stops playing games.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:45 AM
As I recall, he (or the other one, I see no distinction) also said that his hero Mitt Romney was a die-hard Federalist.
Somebody asked him what the Hell he was talking about and he dredged up an article that said Romney once donated to the Heritage Foundation….
Still, I think the term “liar” may be uncalled for here. I mean, did you ever think to ask him what PLANET he was a Federalist on? ‘Cause there’s no telling what that word means there.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:47 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Translated: I’m a big fat liar and will say anything if I think it will advance my argument…….
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 1:47 AM
I see you have developed a taste for the crap left on the hall floor.
Breath mint?
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Thanks for the response, csdeven. I think I understand where you’re coming from. If we mix it up in the future, I’ll be sure to make it less personal. I see it’s not strictly a matter of political issues for you.
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Anyone can say those things
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Ha, there’s the rub. Not many people remember those things let alone say them. Newt comes the closet, then Mitt, and then Rudy but then in the next breath they say something that totally invalidates that view.
Fred has been consistent in the view so far. I’m withholding judgement until I see if he follows through with that view during the pressures of the campaign.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 1:53 AM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:47 AM
I cant, csdeven refuses to even acknowlege that I post anything. He has been like that since I completely and totally refuted ever single one of his baseless assertions regarding Fred, then I challenged him to a civil rational discussion of the merits and deficits of Fred’s candidacy, which cs promptly refused to do so I told him I was going to treat him exactly how he was treating Fred, he hasn’t responded to a single post to him or about him I have made since. In other words he got all childish and took his ball and went home crying to him mommy.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 1:53 AM
You finger mimes? Ewwww.
Bill C on July 7, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Let’s not forget folks, this article(cough cough)is from the LA Times.
calnevari on July 7, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Personally, I think there’s a more than even chance that George Bush himself may try that again at his next opportunity.
You can never assume that any RINO has “learned his lesson” – ever. Trying to keep someone with no coherently expressable political position in line is like trying to herd cats.
Personally, after six years of this crap, I’m just plain sick of it. The thought of eight more makes me want to puke. We already have a fanatically dedicated opposition. The last thing we need is another candidate who’ll spend half his time trying to help them.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:58 AM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:58 AM
And the other half of his time trying to screw his own base…
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 1:59 AM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Yes I always thought the relationship between the Clintons and Bushies was a little too close. It’s like they are all in it together. If I didn’t know better (and I don’t) I almost think Hillary is Bush’s pick to succeed him.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Another Fred thread hijacked by csdeven and jack straw. *sigh*
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:02 AM
And the other half of his time trying to screw his own base…
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 1:59 AM
When did he try to screw the Democrats?
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:02 AM
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:02 AM
yeah but at about 11:45 we found out some specifics of Fred’s senate record thanks to randomnumbers. So not a total loss.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:04 AM
I already had that info, even though some people, who shall remain nameless, claim that Fred supporters don’t research his record. Some people, who shall remain nameless, insist on treating many of us on this blog as if we are less capable of coherent thought than they are.
Many thanks to randomnumbers for the post.
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:10 AM
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:02 AM
You thought it was going to be any different? Neither csdeven nor jackstraw want any serious debate about Fred, so they do their utmost to insult both Fred and anyone attempting to debate Fred in a desperate frightened attempt to redirect any discussion away from Fred and onto anything else including themselves.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:11 AM
Well I didn’t think it was going to be any better, but one can always hope!
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:14 AM
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:10 AM
yeah, the more I research the more I like.
My main problems with Fred is he is rumored to be hiring the Geico cave-man to sign us all up for fred’s campaign
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:15 AM
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:14 AM
The only logical or rational thing to do in a situation like this is to insult the moby trolls at every opportunity while carrying on the debate at hand with those genuinely interested in getting at the facts and truth.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:17 AM
Which Geico cave-man? One of them is ok, but the other one just OOZES attitude! The answer to that should tell us a lot about Fred.
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:18 AM
I don’t know that I can agree, unseen. We recently had a stark reminder of the “insider” thinking that goes on in D.C. with the illegal immigration mess. Even good conservatives like Kyl lost touch and refused to listen to reason.
The problem with Justices is that they don’t go through the House, which is the most responsive body. I can envision Rudy or Mitt, drunk with power, nominating a liberal (think Souter or O’Connor), calling them conservative, and sailing them through the Senate. We don’t find out about the sham until they have us bent over the back of the sofa.
I think our safest bet for judicial nominations is Fred!.
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 2:18 AM
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:15 AM
Sh%t, somebody give him my number… I’d be happy to play the Geico cave-man role for him…..
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:19 AM
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Not sure let me send some somke signals and find out.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:20 AM
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Yes I would rather be safe than sorry but with the web and talk radio I don’t think a souter or oconner could get through today. Times have changed. Washington got a taste of it on immigration but I don’t think they fully understand the sea change that has occurred.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:23 AM
It’s really difficult to insult someone who is blind to their own faults, or so wrapped up in the goal of promoting their opinion that they lose their objectivity. Csdeven is working hard to insult everyone who supports Fred in any manner, all the while making a huge effort to insult no one in particular so he can continue to claim innocence when he’s called on his childish behavior. I didn’t really go for this kind of thing in grade school and I don’t have any patience for it at this point in my life. The posts by both csdeven and jackstraw are dismissive, insulting and condescending, but neither one is big enough to admit it. So, in the future csdeven and jackstraw……I’m not talking to you, I’m talking about you, so no response is required or appreciated.
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:23 AM
o/t Red eye sucks
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:24 AM
I think that’s the whole point of articles like this one.
And I’ve seen the same phenomenon with pretty much everyone – with one rather glaring exception.
But even he claims that he’ll suddenly start “respecting” Thompson the day he officially announces. OK, that is a tiny bit unlikely. But then so is the chance CS’ll be let out of the mattress room to vote in the first place. So I think we can live with it.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 2:24 AM
LOL!
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 2:25 AM
Yeah, you’re probably right. Your Miers example is a good one.
jaime on July 7, 2007 at 2:28 AM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 2:24 AM
We’ll see. Not holding my breath on that one.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:28 AM
well that’s it for me. good conversation all. Can’t take another minute of Red eye.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:32 AM
I guarantee you that never happened in my grade school. It’s a little hard to remember kindergarden, but I’m not even sure anybody got away with it then.
Think about it: can you even imagine someone trying to do that in a room full of REAL people? It would last like two seconds.
No, this is the kind of convoluted and pathologically disruptive behavior pattern that can only develop where there’s absolutely no social feedback – i.e., on the Internet.
It’s a little bit spooky to think what kind of sociopathic freaks are germinating out there. I guess they’re usually not too very competent when it comes to physical violence, but you never know what might happen.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 2:40 AM
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:23 AM
Yes indeed, this is in fact the underlying reason for my infatuation with Fred’s campaign. It’s why I hope to see Fred win, not so much because I am convinced that Fred is all that and a bag of chips. Which quite honestly at the moment he does seem to be. But because a Thompson win will enormously accelerate the change that is happening right now.
As I have said before, for many many years now big money and the socialist/liberal elitist media have exerted an undue influence on American politics. By making his campaign net-centric Fred is making the big money in politics irrelevant and profoundly diminishing the ability of the socialist/liberal elitist media to manipulate the general public by manipulating the information available to the general public.
Whether Fred’s campaign succeeds or not that change is coming and there is nothing that big money or the socialist/liberal elitist media can do about it.
The only question is one of time, the faster it happens the less chance that that big money or the socialist/liberal elitist media will be able to stack the deck in their favor again.
Right now they are trying with all their might to gain a massive presence on the internet to such a degree that they hope the average citizen will be to intimidated to get involved in the political process even though the political process will be right their in their own living room.
This is why people like George Soro’s are so heavily funding liberal blogs like dKoS and DU and sites like MediaMatters. They hope to convince the majority that the internet is owned and operated by socialists/liberals thus silencing the voices of any descent to their socialist agenda.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:45 AM
Yeah, good luck with that. If they can’t do it in China, I think it’ll a little bit hard to accomplish here. You talk about how Washington got “burned” on immigration. Well, that’s nothing compared to what will happen if the Unfairness Act ever gets to the Floor.
The Golden Age of liberalism was the Age of Mass Media. For about a seventy year stretch there, three government-licensed companies controlled nearly all the video news media in America. OK, sure, that was a whole 50% better than the two entities that the Soviet Union had (Tass and Pravda), but it never seemed like quite enough to me.
Narcissists (i.e., liberals) will always predominate in the media; that’s not going to change. But now we’re slowly entering the Information Age.
The collectivists among us can still try to drown out opposition, but they will never again be able to silence it. Those days are gone, and as God is my witness, they aren’t ever coming back.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 3:00 AM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Hey I never said that they were rational, just socialist/liberal, its not like the two go hand in hand very often.
Oh I agree, but then again as I pointed out were talking about socialist/liberals here, these are the same people who stand around for hours trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube and then go all mental when they cant.
It’s far more than just the information age, If the internet were like the television or radio and only allowed you to call up any information you wanted to, then it would be the information age. But with its inherit ability to facilitate communication on a previously never dreamed of scale it is less the information age than the informed age of democracy.
Yes and I believe that as much as people like George Soro’s would like to silence all opposition they know it will soon be impossible which is why they are building as large a base as possible to drown out as many individual voices as they can.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 3:14 AM
Vote your heart. Vote for Fred! Rudi Rudi Rudi is a liberal liberal liberal. Who backs Roberts for the Supremes? Fred! Not Rudi.
Someone is getting nervous about a Fred!
This Rudi-crud GOP country clubbers are spewing about Fred! is the same pitch they were dishing out in 1975-76 about Reagan! It was my first national election as a voter so I remember the Ford clowns very well. They’re baaaaaaaaaaaaaack. Bush I Bush II now Bush III (Rudi). Give us a break. The GOP elite is killing the party.
And, if the fix is in, a Hill victory will be the best thing for conservatism since Jimmy Carter crapped in the WH johnny. No fear. What will be will be.
Think about this…the LATIMES and GOP country clubbers are on the same side against Fred! That should tell us something.
saved on July 7, 2007 at 8:06 AM
This is great, you obviously forget your statement of fact of just a few days ago csdeven. Let me remind you and others.
You believe that if you enter into a debate, that you take ownership of all the other posts that support your position, even if you don’t state them.
Yes, that is what you said, so you have to take “ownership” of everything anyone else has said regarding dissing Fred Thompson. You own it csdeven, all the kooks that will report the untruths will be yours, by your strange decree and debating rules.
right2bright on July 7, 2007 at 8:35 AM
Ok, that’s awesome.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM
Are you REALLY prepared to make the mistake of sticking your nose into a discussion again?
I asked this person to clarify himself, and along comes you, (who AGAIN, has nothing to add to the discussion except to attack me), trying to hijack ANOTHER conversation.
You just don’t learn, do you?
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 8:59 AM
Rudy and Mitt! are keeping the general election in mind in many instances. They also have longer histories than fred? does in politics. They have had to nuance their positions over the years and now they have nuanced those positions even more. fred? is beginning to get a taste of the media pressure that is the catalyst for the habit politicians have of “clarifying” their previous positions and statements.
So, yes, I agree that additional judgment will be made when he has to speak off the cuff in hostile environments. But even if he does well, he will have to answer those actions which, for me, violate the basic tenets of conservatism.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Fred! isn’t the Dreamboat candidate so many desperately wish he will be. Rudy kicks butt – go with a proven winner here, people.
Halley on July 7, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Well, it looks like the children are sleeping in after momma and dada let them stay up late on a Friday night. Perhaps we adults can get back to the topic on hand now.
So, this article will come out in 24 hours or so. Now that fred? has denied it, how damaging will it be if the billing records are produced? (which I doubt they will, because the Clinton smear campaign doesn’t need proof, it just has to cast a doubt. This really doesn’t affect me, because I have problems with his behavior now. This stuff is just part of a consistent history)
The fun thing for me about this is that fred? has been playing coy with his non-candidacy and trying to have all the benefits of media attention yet none of the downside to that attention. He has now been dragged into the fray and has to start defending his positions.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Re: Fred! the federalist
“…I want to do some things only a President can do”
-On Leno, when asked if and why he wants the job of President of the USA.
Big S on July 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Sometimes I wonder how many “federalists” are actually just authoritarians in the electoral minority.
Big S on July 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Time to attempt to hijack the thread again eh…You sound more and more like a professional attack dog for the Clinton machine. Oh by the way, yes that was an insult, and yes it means you are pretty pathetic.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Yawn. This 1991 issue has the riveting attraction of say…watching paint dry.
Purple Avenger on July 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM
The more tenuous and idiotic the “accusation” is, the more of our time liberals believe it will waste. Bush had a habit of actively helping the liberal media turn molehills into mountains. But they’re not dealing with another George Bush here.
Thompson tends to assign these things the precise amount of effort they deserve. Reagan handled retards the same way, and so do I: If liberals say something so incredibly idiotic that it’s worth making a joke out of, do so. Otherwise, just ignore their blather – that drives them nuttier than anything else.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 10:54 AM
How’s that crap in the hall tastin’? Are you ready yet for a breath mint or do you enjoy the stench?
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »