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: « Previous 1 2 3
ROFLMAO! They can’t handle the truth!
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Yet, freddie boy has felt the need to deny this. And not like the prepared BS response he gave when he chickened out on the Michael Moore debate. He was totally on the defensive on his work as a scumbag lobbyist.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 11:08 AM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Being as crap is your department I really wouldn’t know. Obviously you have a crap fetish, not that it surprised me or anyone else, one need only look at your posts in any Fred thread to see that…
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM
So… no the ‘tard thinks that wanting to be able to veto bills makes someone not a “federalist?”
OK, we’ve noted a Hell of a lot of “stupid spots”, but this part is a completely blind spot with the opposition.
Every real person I talk to thinks this is the greatest idea since sliced bread. (Never mind that it’s over 200 years old!) But at the current time, the moonbats don’t have the faintest hint what it means – not a clue.
So far, all they have is the vague notion that it seems important to us so it must somehow be evil. I’m sure one of their very few appointed “intellectuals” is going to come up with an attack for this eventually.
But even then, I think it will be incredibly ham-fisted. Things like abortion and Global Warming are sacraments of their faith, sure. But collectivism is the FOUNDATION of everything they believe in. The concept of local governance has been so long buried in the American psyche that, once someone explains to them what we’re talking about, it won’t seem like just another heresy – they will see it as an ancient demon arising from its imprisonment in some arcane crypt to destroy their world.
The attack against federalism is going take the form of claiming that we want to re-institute “slavery.” Of course, they’d already been reduced to that level of insane hyperbole in their pitch for gay marriage, but they’ll have to co-opt it to this.
I hate to give the dogs a bone, but this is going to start happening within a few weeks anyway, so what the Hell. I figure we may as well start getting ready for it ourselves.
Let’s face it: the slavering going on now is nothing – just more pre-frenzy snipping in search of a vulnerable spot. But once these guys finally figure out that, for the first time in decades, they are fighting an IDEA rather than just another target for what they call their “politics of personal destruction,” that’s all going to change.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 11:31 AM
See? It’s still utterly random at this point — The blind and uncoordinated rushing-in of mindless scouts at litterally every nook and cranny, before a soft spot is located and the rush is triggered.
This is weird. It’s like studying insects. But isn’t that supposed to creep you out LESS as time goes on?
logis on July 7, 2007 at 11:40 AM
These things have a way of taking care of themselves. As high hopes pointed out, a lawyer represents all kinds of people. Doesn’t make him a believer in their cause. It’s called advocacy, and it makes our system of justice work better than most in the world.
My exit question: If we take everything the left throws out as fact and imagine the worst possible scenario as true, who’s on the offensive and who benefits the most?
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 11:41 AM
I’m wondering if freddie boys lobbying activities were in line with the federalist image he has carefully crafted? Is it a federalist position to lobby the federal government to get involved in the asbestos case? Or will there be an attempt to nuance his lobbying activities in a way that makes him appear to have been always working toward the limit of power for the federal government?
I’m wondering the the fredites here can expand on the specifics of his activities as a lobbyist?
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 11:41 AM
That is true, and it is also true that lawyers who represent scumbags are not invited to become the POTUS. Is it possible that the same people who agree that freddie boy can represent whoever he wants, will also agree that John Edwards should get the same pass for his channeling of the souls of dead children?
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 11:45 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
If Rudy wins we get Bloomberg entering the race. Which as Ross showed us in 1992 is bad for the GOP.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I happen to agree with Fred’s efforts in the asbestos issue. Endless law suits for damages do nothing other than make a few people rich, keep the courts busy and increse costs to everyone. Now, if he was trying to get some guy a few million for his pants, I’d have to question it.
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I won’t be able to vote for Rudy and I’m not sure why so many think he’s the answer. I mean……gun control and sanctuary city????
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 11:51 AM
We have already found the vulnerable spots. Since we have already edumacated the groupies (and predictable they deny the existance), all that is left is to expose him for the fake he is to the American people who aren’t hypnotized by his fake red pickup truck, his blue jeans, and his folksy colloquialisms. fred? knows this and that is why his is scared to announce a date.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Here’s a quote from the American Spectator’s article regarding this smear piece.
Thompson was listed as an “enemy” by Planned Parenthood during his time in the Senate. He was twice endorsed by the National Right Life Committee, and had a 100 percent voting record on life issues during his time in the Senate. He has publicly stated his opposition to Roe v. Wade, federal funding for abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
“This is a nothing story,” says the leader of a pro-life organization based in Washington, D.C. “Lawyers do this all the time, and besides, this was 1991. Thompson’s life record is perfect. Folks on our side shouldn’t get suckered by this kind of crap.”
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 11:58 AM
If you take the side of the culpable company, yes it does make sense. But if you look at the destruction wreaked upon the lives of the victims by the unscrupulous company that put profits over people, it is very clear that the victims should get to decide if they would prefer to have an attorney handle their case.
Why would fred? help the company victimize the victims (the victims the company created in the first place), one.more.time?
No, fred? does not get a pass. He could have taken the victims side against the company, but he chose the money over the welbeing of American citizens.
Pathetic!
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Maybe he only took their money and pretended to lobby for them — falsifying legal bills for work not performed. Then he is only a crook, but at least he is not pro-choice. Whew!!!
tommylotto on July 7, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Last time I checked, no one gets “invited” to become the POTUS. They campaign for it.
I made my earlier statement as a generalization. I do not believe the specifics of this smear piece. Although I’m sure you’re fairly delighted at the prospect of believing everything that fills the negative side of your ledger. Whose side are you on, anyway?
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Pathetic? How very tolerant of you, csdeven. In the future, I’d appreciate it if you would not direct your smarmy, insulting posts to me. Thanks.
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Cs, that’s pure, unadulterated poppycock. Do you believe that all plaintiffs are victims and all defendants are greedy and corrupt, especially if they’re big business? Do you think that defending oneself if you’re a company, so that you don’t lose all of your assets on something that happened as much as forty years ago is irresponsible and “out to get” the small guy who helped you build the business?
Sounds like a very left-leaning position to me.
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 12:11 PM
So far, all they have is the vague notion that it seems important to us so it must somehow be evil. I’m sure one of their very few appointed “intellectuals” is going to come up with an attack for this eventually.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Yes it will be racism. Sadly they have evidence to support this veiw. During the civil rights debates the ones strongly against the act used the federalist argument.
Which is total crap. Look for the dems to use slogans like “states rights” ,”3/5ths a person” “Southern idea” “civil war” “slave state”, “Reagan’s flawed policy” etc
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Background on Fred’s accusers in this that the AP and LAT left out:
http://newsbusters.org/node/13944
(Although csdeven isn’t one of the trolls; or, at least, not unearthed so far.)
andycanuck on July 7, 2007 at 12:19 PM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Do you know for a fact that the companies thet he represented in the case “knowingly” allowed their workers and consumers to get sick for the sake of profits?
The asbestos issue came to light over many years of research. Many companies were being sued that had no link to asbestos issue except they had sold products with asbestos in them unknowing that it could cause illness. Things like brakepad companies.
Asbestos for many, many years was thought a godsend because of its properties. So do we know that all the companies that Fred defended were really as “evil” as you say
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:25 PM
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Come on now get a hold of your senses man, csdeven said it was so so it has to be…
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 1:19 PM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I pointed that quote out because I have a suspicion that his list of priorities, when he gets around to outlining it, will not start with “vetoing bills.” While some things that only a President can do (appointing Federal judges) are relevant to federalist principles, he can’t just run on that. People will want to see a plan to get some things done, and I assume he understands that. Prepare to be sorely disappointed.
Big S on July 7, 2007 at 1:39 PM
“Believe” is an awfully big word. The moonbats’ incredibly idiotic list of “grievances” is growing by the hour. Every article like this – or ones that are even more ludicrous – get stuck in their brains and will all keep being repeated FOREVER.
But do the moonbats “believe” their own gibberish? That question doesn’t even really make any sense. They don’t believe or disbelieve anything. They only FEEL.
What they’ve been told to FEEL is that
Barry Goldwater Ronald Reagan George Bush Newt Gingrich George BushFred Thompson is BAD.And it doesn’t even make any sense to them when you say they are “lying.” In their minds that can never be the case. Of course, the tiny details may not be accurate. But that’s irrelevant.
You can’t prove that they don’t hate
Barry Goldwater Ronald Reagan George Bush Newt Gingrich George BushFred Thompson. It’s not possible. That FEELING will always be true. And in the mind of the moonbat, that justifies everything.logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:44 PM
It is good to be prepared for disappointment, but I, for one, am hopeful and prefer to spend my energies in a positive light. I am very tired of having to take the Democrats view of American decline as the MSM is so wont to do.
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 1:50 PM
We all understand your feelings perfectly. And, yes, we will all eventually see exactly how many people share them.
Your concern for our emotional well-being is touching, albeit widly misplaced. Trust me, we’re not the ones who are unprepared for the coming shock.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I FEEEEEL your pain.
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 1:59 PM
That FEELING will always be true. And in the mind of the moonbat, that justifies everything.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 1:44 PM
While I agree with you that this is how liberals “think”, the problem is that right now feelings are holding center stage with Fred. Most on this thread understand that Fred has some core principles by which he tries to live his life.
However, since he is in the “testing the waters” phase of the campaign the “feeling” attacks are getting more play. These attacks will continue until Fred enters the race officially and starts to put down the gaunlet on these crybabies.
I am eagerly awaiting a campaign that focus on ideas and not personality.
I think Fred hits it on the head on numerous issues. The question I have is does he really believe what he is saying. If the answer is “yes” I will do everything in my power to help him win. If no I will probably vote for whichever person gets the nomination and hope for the best.
From researching his senate speeches it appears that he has always talked this way and unlike Mitt and Rudy who are in your face pandering to conservatives Fred comes out like the “real” thing. The MSM attacks on him to try to stop him from entering the race only reinforce this view IMO.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:03 PM
It’s sad. And really, I mean that. Every time csdeven opens his mouth about Mr. Thompson, he hurts his own reputation more. I’ve read his comments on other posts here, and he actually appears to be a reasoned human being on any subject that doesn’t involve Fred! If it does, however, he just spews condescending drivel. That doesn’t help Mitt Romney’s candidacy one bit, either, having such a biased and childish supporter. Which is also too bad, as Romney is a viable candidate, and csdevin without the Fred! moonlighting would have made a decent advocate for him.
Beth A. on July 7, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Beth A. on July 7, 2007 at 2:05 PM
That would be true except that csdeven has already pretty much destroyed any creditability he had built up with his other posts, now he is just another moby troll.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Some questions I want to ask Fred and the rest of the field.
1) do you support NAFTA? the NAU? or WTO? Will you secure our borders? Should American soverignity be defended? How and Why?
2) What will you do to make the federal government smaller? besides cutting positions?
3) What is your veiw on block grants to the states? Unfunded mandates?
4) The Commerce clause, is it over used? In what ways?
5) Will you do everything you need to to win in Iraq and in the WOT? will you take the fight to the enemy in Iran and Syria?
6) Will every dollar of new revenue go to reducing the debt?
7) Will you uphold safety and environmental regulations with China trade?
8) What is your view on the fair tax?
9) Is free trade always good no matter the ramifications to our country?
There are others but those would be a nice break form “Are you pro-life or pro-choice?”
Our reporters are really doing a piss poor job defending our liberties and informing the public.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Avoiding responsibility is left leaning. I expect those companies to pay up for their irresponsible use of asbestos when it has been well know for 2000 years that asbestos is life threatening. As early as the 1920’s, the first case of asbestiosis related to asbestos exposure was diagnosed. Insurance companies were reducing benefits and increasing premiums for those in asbestos related fields.
fred? decided that instead of siding with people who were wronged by a company that used asbestos, he would side with the people trying to limit their responsibility for making victims of these people and their families. To add insult to injury, he used his skills to try and stop them from having lawyers represent them in these cases. It’s bad enough that the victim has had their choice of a long healthy life taken from then, now freddie boy wants to victimize them again by taking their right to an attorney from them also.
fred? Thompson! Man of the regular Joe.
Yeah, right. freddie boy is a Washington insider who values money over principle.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 2:17 PM
one other one:
will you continue “star wars” and the entire space program.?
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:17 PM
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Great questions that I also would like to see answered.
That would be because the socialist/liberal elitist media is not and has no intention of doing either. What they are doing is attempting to change the nature of our republic so that it becomes the socialist utopia they believe that it rightfully should be. To hell with what the American people want, their just to damn stupid to know what is really best for them.
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Quit hijacking this post with common sense.
BTW, csdeven, defending oneself against your lies and accusations is not a hijack. Playing the hijack card is your way of dodging the truth. If you state it, you own it…your words, if others state it you own it, your own words.
Now back to Fred! unseen is correct, Fred! is testing the waters, an obvious federalist, ex-lawyer who has taken on many cases. One would think that it is honarable to represent the company that he is paid to represent. The same would carry through with representing us. But as I had posted earlier, it is too early to tell how effective Fred! would be. If you picked apart Reagan’s background, one would have never thought he would be as great of president as he was. Ex-communist, ex-labor boss, ex-democrat, actor…ending up being the standard that all conservatives are measured by. As the months unfold, we will hear from people with real facts, not made up facts, or nit picking facts, from honest leaders, and bloggers,and we will see how he creates and runs his campaign. Who he picks to run with, and to represent him. Out of those real issues, and not the whining of “he was an asbestos whore” from people that cast lies and don’t own up to them. The months ahead, not the decades ago, will determine who the next Republican leader is. If it is Fred, then it will be the right choice, if it is Mitt, it will be the right choice, if it is Rudy, it will be the right choice. Because the smart conservatives, will get behind the candidate that is chosen. A closed mind will lead to wrongful accuasations.
right2bright on July 7, 2007 at 2:24 PM
OK, I assume you’re just trying to make a point here, right?
I’m sure you’ve already spent at least ten seconds going over the volumes that Fred Thompson has spoken and written over the last couple of decades. So you have to know EXACTLY where Fred Thompson stands on all these issues.
Right? I mean, you haven’t suddenly decided to join the Retard Patrol in insisting that none of that “matters” until he files his papers and repeats all of it in tag-team “debates” and while leftist reporters are screaming in his face, have you?
logis on July 7, 2007 at 2:31 PM
He already answered this one in the Robinson interview.
First he will only do that which is in reason to win the war in Iraq. That means that fred? feels that if unreasonable means were required, he wouldn’t use them.
2nd, he will wait to see what the soldiers think of the war. If that lose their commitment, then he will. He continues to specifically point to two soldiers that are friends of his. So, if a couple of soldiers he personally knows decide from their limited exposure to the small area of operations they are serving in, that they don’t see any hope, then freddie boy will lose hope.
What a friggen maroon! We need a leader, not a pandering coward that doesn’t understand the role of the CinC and would rather defer that responsibility to soldiers. The CinC is the most powerful executive job on the face of the earth.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 2:32 PM
I am not supporting anyone yet. And if anyone should be worried about how their reputation is affected by the people who support him, it should be fred?. He has already bragged that he is getting support partially because of his exposure on some TV show he was on. Yeah, that’s a real informed supporter ya got there freddie boy.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Hehe. Ten thousand variations on the question: “Why have you stopped wanting to kill babies?”
I know this stuff is as serious as cancer. But if you step back from it all for a second, it all seems like a giant, neverending joke.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Interesting conclusions. Any facts to substantiate any of those conclusions? And I’m not talking about your take on them, I’m talking about facts that are facts.
1. He was a lobbyist.
2. He lobbied for a company seeking to be represented the same way American companies were.
3. They were a foreign reinsurer.
4. Lobbyists are advocates.
5. Attorneys are advocates.
6. The lobbying client involves Asbestos, a substance used predominately in the construction industry.
7. Claims made against construction companies and manufacturers are legion.
8. Settlement costs are skyrocketing.
9. Industries at the time did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Those are the facts, without rancor, that I can think of off the top of my head. You have made conclusions based of either this set of facts, or facts that I either omitted or have no knowledge of. Please enlighten me with how you extrapolate Fred’s intent and state of mind from this set of facts, or any other facts you’d care to bring.
Please, though, give me the facts that you want to extrapolate from first. I’ve engaged this conversation with you again in good faith. Please show me your basis for your conclusions.
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Sorry to spam my own post, but I can’t get over this.
Because the macabre joke doesn’t even stop there. The morally outraged Puritans who keep grinding the crucible to sear out the slightest hint of impurity are the biggest proponents of the “sin” they so desperately seek to uncover. The liberal Inquisitors may as well be holding infants down and strangling them WHILE THEY’RE ASKING THE QUESTION!
Seriously, does anybody else see how incredibly insane this whole process is?
logis on July 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 2:48 PM
If you honestly think csdeven is capable of a good faith discussion about Fred then you really need to put the crack pipe down and back slowly away from it or at the very least pass around that sh%t you’re smoking……
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Real quickly,
I’ve explained this several times. Perhaps the best way, is to point out the hypocrisy in your spin on freds? lobbying choices.
From now on, no fred? supporter can point to ANYTHING fred? did as an attorney or a lobbyist. That means his work on Watergate, the Roberts nomination, or any other positive actions that you fred? supporters always point to when his lack of experience is pointed out.
If he’s a lawyer and cannot be held responsible for the causes he advocates, then all of them are off the table.
It’s lunch time and I’ll address your 9 points a bit later. But on point 9, the harmful effects of asbestos ahve been well documented since the 1920’s. So they have had plenty of forewarning and did not need 20/20 hindsight.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 2:31 PM
I’m pretty sure where Fred stands on most of those. Not sure of his position on NAU, WTO. Not sure if he will revisit Nafta either. The others yeah I know where he stands.
I have no idea where the others stand because none of these questions have been asked in a debate. All we get is “are you a bible thumping cave-man that believes God sits on your right shoulder and wisphers in your ear” questions or “do you REALLY think women that have abortions are “BABY KILLING SATAN rejects that have escaped from HELL?” questions.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM
I’ve seen his voting record, and it’s staunchly pro-life. I think this is just another media/dhim hit piece designed to help hitlery win in 08.
I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, after all, this was 17 years ago…
You’re wasting your time with this person. This has been asked of him repeatedly. Don’t waste your time.
jdawg on July 7, 2007 at 3:10 PM
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM
If you honestly think csdeven is capable of a good faith discussion about Fred then you really need to put the crack pipe down and back slowly away from it or at the very least pass around that sh%t you’re smoking……
I rest my case……..
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Again – with all due respect – I’m afraid I find that extremely hard to believe.
I had to look up the term “Moby” ’cause I never heard it until this guy came along. But he seems to look a lot like that picture in the dictionary.
Are you SURE he wasn’t just posting a bunch of fluff crap like “Yeah, you’re right, those evil Democrats really are BAD!!” I used to check out ProtestWarrior, and they got about three of those DU “infil-tarders” a week.
Seriously, I want to see a link to one of those incredibly insightful “conservative” posts everyone keeps claiming CS is constantly making. I’m just not buying it.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Yep… Fred! Derangment syndrome…
I actualy just read this whole thread… wow…
CS… did Fred! kill your puppy as a kid? I don’t see this type of rhetoric out of you against Libs, Hillary, or anyone else who demonstratably deserves it MUCH more.
If Fred ! perfect? no… but he’s also not the Devil you try to make him out to be… nor are those of us who happen to support him as the best of a questionable lot, the unlettered idiotic groupies you constantly try to potray us to be….
Sad really… hate is an emotion which leads people to do really silly, and stupid things.
Romeo13 on July 7, 2007 at 3:17 PM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM
I see how insane the process is but you have to understand it is not coming from the pruitians. It is coming from the liberal left wing who seek their own wedge issues. Most GOP supports want an anti-abortion canidate. The left wants a GOP canidate that thinks “women that have abortions are “BABY KILLING SATAN rejects that have escaped from HELL. By getting this out there the left hopes to turn off the moderates.
The fact is that all most any GOP canidate that supports federalistic judges will get the support of the base.
This is why I am hoping that the left nominates the most taxing/spending communist power grabber out there. And since Hillary is ahead in the polls it appears my wish will be granted. Mondale has nothing on the Hillary. In fact Mondale had nothing on Bush. Whom contary to popular believe is I believe the most liberal President this country has ever had.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Romeo13 on July 7, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Hell he doesnt even post this kind of vicious attack against terrorists that behead children…..
doriangrey on July 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Thank you, but I never really thought that the Church of Reformed Calvinists was heavily involved in today’s media. In fact, the days when any Christians performed Inquisitiosn ended a very long time ago.
I was referring of course to the liberals. THEY are the ones with the torches in their hands these days.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 3:32 PM
logis on July 7, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Yes, I agree the liberals are the true non-believers these days. It’s like they want to bring in the reign of the likes of Hitler, Satlin,Lenin, Pol POT because all those didn’t believe in a God either. I personally think the Druids got to Gore and forced converted him.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM
George Will once described Bush as the most socially liberal, but “personally conservative” President we’ve had in recent history. He didn’t explain that last part, but I can only guess he meant that George Bush went to church a lot and lived a fairly clean lifestyle.
Sadly, that put George Bush head-and-shoulders ahead of most of the crowd on the other side of the isle. But I think I’m like a lot of conservatives today when I say (pardon the expression) TO HELL WITH THAT!
I am sick and tired of that kind of crap. I think that explains a lot of the backlash against Romney. A lot of us just DON’T CARE whether you drink or not. We need to know that you won’t flake out after the Primary and “move to the left” because you think you can steal the Socialist vote from Hillary Clinton. And the only way to do that is to hear your POLITICS, not just your current positions on a laundry list of populist issues.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 3:43 PM
George Will once described Bush as the most socially liberal, but “personally conservative” President we’ve had in recent history. He didn’t explain that last part, but I can only guess he meant that George Bush went to church a lot and lived a fairly clean lifestyle.
logis on July 7, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Wilson and FDR and LBJ where all “personally conservative” also but socially liberal. Wilson brought us the income tax, league of nationns and FDR brought us Social Security, LBJ brought us Welfare, fodd Stamps, Medicare. Bush joined the club and brought in Prescription drugs, and laid the groundwork for the NAU.
I don’t think our cournty can take many more “personally conservative; socially liberal” leaders.
unseen on July 7, 2007 at 3:54 PM
logis:
In response to your request re: csdevin:
“Senator Lott and other politicians are individuals who have though own views. I’m a conservative Republican but I can’t stand how conservative bloggers and radio talk show hosts our treating Republicans on this bill. When you vote for someone to Elected office you vote for them because you agree with them more often then not, not because you agree with them on every single issue.
chip91 on June 27, 2007 at 10:52 AM”
and csd’s response:
csdeven on June 27, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I hurriedly picked two HA posts at random and found this csdevin comment on one of them about amnesty in June this year – sorry I can’t get it to link properly but the time and date will locate it. Take a look at the rhetoric; calm, reasonable, making his arguments in a civil manner… as opposed to the self-indulgent, temper-tantrumish diatribes he responds to anything Fred! with.
He really could have done some good for us all by continuing with his first approach, as I think we all are leery of making a mistake with choosing this next candidate, and would listen to logical pros and cons not repeated ad nauseum. It is indeed too bad csdevin can’t see past his over-reaction to the Fred! hype he ascribes to others to notice that his response against comes across equally as over-the-top ridiculous. His byline slaughters his own arguments on this subject before they are presented.
THAT is a waste.
Beth A. on July 7, 2007 at 4:00 PM
I appreciate your thoughtful research. Please note, that person never personally attacked me. Just take a look at this thread as an example. They have nothing left with which to defend fred? so they turn their ire on the person bringing the message.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Beth A.,
Here is a perfect example…
I posted this…..
Here is the response I get…..
So, he starts with a personal insult.
If I don’t agree with him I have some personal history with fred?? freds? failure to live up to my conservative standards disgusts me.
As you have found out through careful research, he obviously doesn’t read enough of what I write in order to make those claims about my feelings towards liberals.
Groupies: The fact is there are people who support fred? because of his character “cliff branch” on some TV show he starred on. Is Romeo13 one of those people? I don’t know, but for some reason he takes offense. Perhaps he is and resents my pointing out that those people are really screwed up. But if that is true, he outed himself as I NEVER accused him of being a groupie. I have NEVER called ALL fred? supporters “groupies”.
His last response about hate is supposed to refer to me I guess. I don’t take it to heart because I am not that which he is describing, so he is clearly not talking to me. And if he is, he makes it impossible to respond because doing so would mean I would have to show him the errors of his ways and that would just embarrass him further. And that is not what I am about.
Other persons assumptions are not my responsibility. (H/T Jackie Chan) ;-)
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 4:25 PM
OK, I’ll take them one at a time….I applaud your order of points. They are in the most logical order to explain my position.
1. He was a lobbyist.
A: Lobbyists have earned the poor reputation they have. With the recent Abramoff scandal, that reputation is re-enforced. I am willing to allow that lobbyists by and large are honest.
2. He lobbied for a company seeking to be represented the same way American companies were.
A: Yes. And the fact is that he chooses those clients and their causes, so their cause is a big part of a glimpse into their character.
3. They were a foreign reinsurer.
A: Does that excuse what they were trying to accomplish?
4. Lobbyists are advocates.
A: Okay
5. Attorneys are advocates.
A: Okay
6. The lobbying client involves Asbestos, a substance used predominately in the construction industry.
A: True
7. Claims made against construction companies and manufacturers are legion.
A: I had to look that up and I’m not sure of the context, but I assume you mean they are like class action suits? All the claimants are viewed as a monolithic group?
8. Settlement costs are skyrocketing.
A: I’ll take your word for that. I assume those costs are borne by the culpable party?
I already addressed #9.
1. fred? could have chosen to lobby for the people who were the victims or to take neither side.
2. As an accomplished lawyer and lobbyist, he could have brought his considerable skills and political connections to bear against the guilty parties.
3. The victims wanted to be represented by individual lawyers.
Here is how I extrapolate his mindset….
1. It is morally right to allow the victims their choice of representation, even if that choice is wrong.
2. It is morally wrong to get the government involved through personal contacts to deny those victims that right.
3. fred? chose which side he wanted to represent.
4. I assume that the big money was to be found lobbying for the insurance company and not the victims.
5. fred? went for the money instead of the principle.
6. As a supposed federalist, wouldn’t less government involvement in a private citizens life be more along freds? claim as a said federalist?
7. fred?, like his supporters, will point to the Roberts lobbying job as a way to prove freds? credentials as a federalist, but they want to claim simple advocacy status when he worked to limit the choices of American citizens. Now I expect this from his supporters, but it my understanding that fred? himself does this also. He should, as a lobbyist well versed in denying responsibility as an “advocate” for a client, have those statements bragging on his Roberts lobbying stick in his throat.
I hope I understood what you were looking for. If not, let me know and I’ll try to answer your questions more accurately.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I have absolutely no way of ascertaining whether CS was biting the computer screen as he typed that. So I’m happy to take you at your word that this doesn’t represent a “tantrum.”
But if you’d stop marveling at his rare abstention from personal abuse, and take the time to actually READ the rhetoric he’s spouting, I think you’d realize that the sort of person who keeps injecting that sort of class-warfare argument into every discussion can by no stretch of the imagination be referred to as a “conservative.”
logis on July 7, 2007 at 6:00 PM
And, the only group where one MUST be 100% pro-life from the moment of conception…
I am very pro-life, have been for over 20 years, and been involved in pro-life politics for a long time, and I know of what I speak. The only group that kills it’s own wounded to maintain some form of “purity”.
jdawg on July 7, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I have to ask…Is this really any different from Romney’s own admission that he was once pro-choice?
I think that if Fred has truly changed his belief system then it shouldn’t turn into a major stumbling block for him.
Ryan Gandy on July 7, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Ryan Gandy on July 7, 2007 at 6:38 PM
No, of course not. However, there’s always a different standard for certain candidates…
jdawg on July 7, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I will accept your three additional facts.
Now I will just do this longhand without resorting to the points. First off, plaintiffs are not necessarily victims. They’re just announcing the right through a complaint to seek damages against negligent parties. Their case still has to be proven. And in response to your argument that asbestos was/is a known carcinogen, depends on who you asked and what they knew. There’s a lot that goes into asbestos litigation. The asbestos plaintiffs bar has this down to a science as do the asbestos defense bar. This isn’t about making victims whole, it’s about giving plaintiffs money to compensate for their loss if they prevail.
Secondly, an attorney represents all kinds of people, both plaintiff and defendant. There’s nothing wrong with giving your client zealous representation, if it’s within the law. The way our system is supposed to work is that everyone gets a fair shake, both plaintiffs and defendants. And that means someone has to represent both sides. Anecdotally, I’ve know hundreds of plaintiffs and hundreds of defense attorneys. With rare exception, they get a bum rap from people who put attorneys below politicians for truth and honesty.
So I believe that just basing your argument on whom one represents is neither accurate nor correct.
G.K. Chesterton said, “Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the
mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
In other words, keep the mind open at least until there is a reason to close it. I have not found that reason by virtue of your argument.
Thank you for the honest discourse.
Tennman on July 7, 2007 at 7:29 PM
I agree that everyone deserves honest representation. But I also would not chose to to take on a cause that was immoral. There are plenty of lawyers that will take on those cases. There are lawyers that refuse certain cases on principle especially when the guilt is not in dispute.
I apply those same principles to a lobbyist. There are plenty of worth while causes that one can get involved in. That may not be others standards, but they are mine and I will not support someone that doesn’t fit those standards.
csdeven on July 7, 2007 at 10:01 PM
There is one very minor difference. This event didn’t actually HAPPEN.
But, yeah, other than that, they’re pretty much identical.
logis on July 8, 2007 at 1:49 AM
How DARE you insinuate that Hillary clinton has ties to an abortion lobby?
The article very clearly said that NO politician other than Fred Tompson has EVER been associated with abortion in ANY way.
You’re obviously having a very hard time dealing with a conversation at CS’s level. Look, it’s really simple: just take an ice cream scoop and remove the parts of your brain that contain any knowledge beyond what you’ve read in the most recent issue of the Los Angeles Times. I think then you’ll finally understand that the guy’s really making some pretty good points here.
logis on July 8, 2007 at 2:02 AM
logis:
Beth A. on July 8, 2007 at 4:17 AM
So, you think fred? is the belle of the ball and anyone who disagrees with that cannot possible be a conservative?
fred? isn’t a principled conservative. He’s a power hungry Washington insider who is creating the image of a principled conservative for himself. It worked in Tennessee in 1992 and he thinks it will work in 2008. His problem is that the rest of the country isn’t impressed with red pickup trucks, blue jeans, flannel shorts, and folksy colloquialisms designed to fool people into believing he is something he is not.
Reagan really did own horses and lived a down to earth life style. He didn’t have to fake people into supporting him by riding his horse in rallies when people were looking and then driving away in his limo the second they were out of sight of him. Yet, we have a certain segment of fred? supporters who believe he is the next Reagan. Riiiight. fred? is a midget with a bullhorn standing behind a cardboard cutout of Reagan. fred? actually had the nerve during his speech at the Lincoln Club, to claim Reagan asked him for advice about a speech he was getting ready to give and Reagan changed his speech because fred? told him to. I’m still waiting for the proof for that line of BS and even his most crazy supporters have yet to provide such proof.
Yeah, it’s clear, if a person chooses to see, that fred? talks the talk, but he has to have a crutch to walk the walk. He’s a fake, and he refuses to engage as a real candidate and that shows him as a coward.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Just when I thought it was safe to go in the water, you get all vituperative again. (sigh)
Tennman on July 8, 2007 at 12:55 PM
csdevin,
Everything you wrote about Fred! on your 8:55am comment, I have read here from you before. Pete, meet repeat.
I do see Fred! as the front runner for me currently; I also am strongly interested in Mr. Romney as a possible candidate. No belles of the ball here – sorry.
As far as me supposedly believing that
?
Hogwash. I never said any such thing. Your logic just jumped the shark. And in one final credit I give you for pastcomments clearly written, I suspect you know it.
Keep shoveling away at that hole to China you are digging yourself into, cs. Or, simply stop. Either way, I admit I was wrong to think you might have more substance. My bad.
Beth A. on July 8, 2007 at 1:00 PM
That is, I think a self-created problem. Your own word here is candidate. Mitt (who you cited I believe) is declared, Fred has not, so lets say ‘likely candidates’.
One of the reasons that Fred gets ‘a different standard’, in your words, is because he is held up as a different ‘kind of candidate’. In a exercise in hyperbole, DG labeled him a prophet the other day, essentially related on his net-centric campaign.
I’m not clear how one could conclude he is cutting-edge, as Kos (& others) pushed the net involvement in politics. It is the videos and audio on the net? Special because his are on ABC and various RW blogs, not just on candidate’s websites? The first election on-line video I saw was Hunter, honestly, and there is the Youtube series and the Powerline candidate forum, all of which are audio/video components that are supposedly Fred’s prophetic quality.
Or perhaps it is meant that he is special because he engages the bloggers and blog readers? So from that standard we would have to label McCain prophetic for saying they should have a bi-weekly? conference call with bloggers. Or perhaps it’s because he blogs himself? Well in that case we would have to call E. Edwards prophetic. One also has to overlook Hunter’s letters written directly for LGF re:Israel. The casting of Fred, by some has been an exercise in hyperbole, thus he is subject to equalizing factors. [I just cite this for example]
The only way that they can be comfortably cast is in a relative light. Meaning Fred’s ‘campaign’ has a large percentage of it’s effort invested on the web. But in absolute values, is it greater than Mitt and mini-Mitt or others? Measured in absolute values, it’s highly unlikely.
Or course, I’m not charging you with that. Unseen brought valuable information to the table re: M-F, and so did you re:leaving office. There is good commentary to be found re: Fred in these threads once the emotive forces are taken out.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Clearly, and the day you address those and not talk about me, we can get back to the topic of this thread, which is fred?. I guess that hint wasn’t strong enough.
Are you serious? fred? isn’t even a candidate. How can he be the serious front runner?
Exactly, that is why I ASKED the question instead of accusing you.
Which was a question for clarification to this statement by you….
No, you assumed without thinking to ask me. And I have noted your study of my remarks and have thanked you for it.
There’s no reason to stop as it is not a hole. I am building a rock solid case against a faker and a liar who is too cowardly and disrespectful towards me to actually announce a date certain for his entrance into the fray.
So, you and your ilk can continue to hijack threads talking about me. Or, simple stop. Either way, I admit I was wrong thinking you might have more substance.
My bad.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 2:55 PM
For every thing discussed in this thread (and other threads) about csdeven and you haven’t figured out that was an attempt to give that person an opportunity to respond to the topic of the thread instead of continually being obsessed with me. But, alas, it seems that the mindset of those that would rather fixate on csdeven is greater than their desire to discuss their defense of the person who the topic is about.
It’s real hard to take anyone seriously that cannot control their thought process and stay on topic, rather than invest their time in poor little old me. I’m flattered, but your complaints hardly have anything to do with freddie boys complete lack of qualifications and fakeries as they relate to his unsuitability to be the POTUS.
csdeven on July 8, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Haven’t read the comments here today, so forgive me if I don’t comment on anyone else’s comments…but I’m gonna say one thing about this topic.
Fred!…subject of abortion…don’t give a rat’s a$$. Abortion always legal SOMEWHERE. More important fish to fry.
There. Done, now.
tickleddragon on July 8, 2007 at 5:20 PM
You are putting waayy too much thought into this. Liberals reject the entire concept of “standards;” they rely solely on their feelings. So, In the mind of the liberal, the term “special standard” just means “I especially hate you.”
To people who make decisions based on emotion, there is US, and there is THEM, and there is nothing else. Liberals pervert every fact they can to support their feelings, and they reject any fact they’re not able to use to support their self-righteous hatred. By the liberal’s definition, everything a conservative says and does will always be BAD and the more conservative you are, the more BAD you are. Period.
In other words: to liberals, the thought is determined by the feeling – not the other way around. This way of thinking rejects reason in favor of rationalization. And trying to analyze that is the most complete waste of time imaginable.
logis on July 8, 2007 at 5:27 PM
His campaign style was cited as example of his brilliance. I am simply refuting that claim by showing how every aspect of his campaign (that I’m aware of) is or has been done by other candidates. Sorry if you think that’s too much thought.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Fred Thompson indeed did not invent the entire concept of the political campaign. And as long as you’re careful to isolate that trite but true thought from any other, it represents the very essense of simplicity.
You quoted someone else’s post talking about “special standards”, so of course I assumed you were trying to relate to that. I.e, that your claim somehow showed that Fred Thompson was less intelligent than all of the other billions of people who share the exact same trait.
No need for apologies though; I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If, as you’ve said above, the only point you were trying to make is that Fred Thompson’s failure to single-handedly invent politics does not prove that he is “brilliant”, then you are effectively saying absolutely nothing – the very paragon of simplicity.
logis on July 8, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Fred Thompson indeed did not invent the entire concept of the political campaign. And as long as you’re careful to isolate that trite but true thought from any other, it represents the very essense of simplicity.
You quoted someone else’s post talking about “special standards”, so of course I assumed you were trying to relate to that. I.e, that your claim somehow showed that Fred Thompson was less intelligent than all of the other billions of people who share the exact same trait.
No need for apologies though; I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If, as you’ve said above, the only point you were trying to make is that Fred Thompson’s failure to single-handedly invent politics does not prove that he is “brilliant”, then you are effectively saying absolutely nothing – the very paragon of simplicity.
logis on July 8, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Yep. It wouldn’t appear that it would be needed to be said, as it is – “the very paragon of simplicity”. So unnecessary for you (and with apologies I haven’t looked to discern your reason for support of Fred, so clear not directed to you). As it was cited to refute a statement (provided as a basis of support for Fred), it is necessary for some. I can quote if necessary, but since we have accertained by your own statement that it is unnecessary for you, I’ll pass unless requested.
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 6:46 PM
clear = clearly
Spirit of 1776 on July 8, 2007 at 6:47 PM
This is directed at my fellow commentators who consider themselves to be secular libertarians and pro-choice:
Friends, are you aware that many libertarians are also pro-life?
ColtsFan on July 8, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3