L.A. Times Explains Missing Passage from Article on Fred Thompson’s Alleged Lobbying for An Abortion Rights Group
posted at 8:59 pm on July 10, 2007 by Patterico
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The L.A. Times has appended the following paragraph to its online version of the story about Fred Thompson’s lobbying:
An earlier version of this article included a passage in which Judith DeSarno said Fred Thompson reenacted a cowboy death scene from one of his movies. The version of the article that was printed in Saturday’s newspaper replaced the earlier, online version. That newer version omitted the reference, because confirmation of the name of the movie could not be made before the story got reprinted. Based on DeSarno’s account, the scene that she said Thompson reenacted appears to be from “Keep the Change,” a TNT television western that would have been in production around the time of the lunch and dinner that she described.
Here is the Internet Movie Database entry for the movie.
Interesting that the paper published something online that wasn’t yet confirmed. Are there different standards for online stories vs. print at the L.A. Times?
The blogosphere has forced the paper to explain why it whisked away the sentence in question — and that’s a good thing. But the rumors of the death of the story’s credibility were greatly exaggerated.
By the way, I don’t think the story, if true, means that pro-life conservatives should despair at the idea of a Thompson candidacy. All this story means, if it’s true, is that he didn’t feel strongly enough about abortion in 1991 to turn down work for an abortion rights group. That doesn’t mean he agrees with the agenda of abortion rights groups — or that he would appoint bad judges, which is the only relevance of any of this.
Trust me, his judges would be better than Hillary’s.
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
I guess I was right.
tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Whether true or not, are lawyers supposed to represent only people and groups they agree with? It’s all bulls&$t.
commonsensehoosier on July 10, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Appears so.
Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Thanks be to baby Jesus for the new media.
TheSitRep on July 10, 2007 at 9:21 PM
A lawyer can agree to represent a murderer or child molester in an adversarial system with a belief that through this system the truth will prevail. For better or worse that is the system that we have. Prosecutors will do anything (within limits, er Nifong) to get a conviction, and defense lawyers will do anything (within limits) to get an acquital. The outcome from the battle of these modern day champions is more often than not, hopefully, the truth.
The same cannot be said for lobbying. If you accept money to promote a position that you personally abhor, you would be a whore.
tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Not true! I mean, Allah told us so in his comments about the Fred/Hannity story and all.
RW Wacko on July 10, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Actually, I kinda figured the cowboy part of the story was the only part that was really relevant to anything. I thought it was kind of a cute little anecdote.
But the rest of the drivel about who he might or might not have lobbied for 16 years ago? You’d have to be an idiot to give a crap about that.
If, as the moonbats are claiming, Fred is indeed “evil” for talking to Senators about an “evil” cause, then are all of the politicians who ever LISTENED to a lobbyist talk about an “evil” cause all evil too?
‘Cause guess what, little boys and girls? They ALL do it.
The moonbats combine a child’s naivete with an Inquisitor’s zeal. Geeze; with that psychotic a view of how the world works, it’s no wonder they all want to destroy America!
logis on July 10, 2007 at 9:48 PM
What
Hillarythe LATimes hasn’t figured on is it really doesn’t matter. For those who wouldn’t vote for Fred because of what happened (or didn’t happen) re abortion 16 years ago where would they put their vote. Rudy? Mitt? Paul?It’s a non issue except that they’re putting Fred’s name out to more and more voters every day and actually making him more palatable to moderate Democrat voters who find their own party’s offerings too far to the left.
Buzzy on July 10, 2007 at 10:10 PM
IOW, we don’t really know for certain, but, hey, it seems to fit, and heck, it comes from a Democratic operative and it’s against a Republican (cuz we all know they’re really evil) so, WTF, let’s print it anyway.
jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Better question: Are there
differentany standardsfor online stories vs. printat the L.A. Timesjdawg on July 10, 2007 at 10:19 PM
[jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 10:19 PM]
Even better question: Is the LAT starting a process of fact-check editing by blog so they can get the story cleaned up for the morning print edition?
Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 10:33 PM
A major US newspaper changes a published
storyhit piece without acknowledgment or explanation until exposed, but it still has credibility. Fake but accurate. The new standard in American journalism.Barf!
TheBigOldDog on July 10, 2007 at 10:33 PM
The really weird thing for me is that I have known so much about the candidates lately. Bill Clinton? Hey, Memphis is only a few hundred miles from Little Rock. We knew (and kept telling y’all) that Paula Jones spoke the truth. You refused to listen.
Al Gore? What a sorry POS that candidate was! (Witness the fact we Tennesseans didn’t vote for him.)
Fred? as csdeven styles him? My sources tell me he’s definitely FRED!!
grits on July 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Modern day champions?!!! Please! You certainly have a high opinion of yourself don’t you? LOL!
DCJeff on July 10, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Nut. Shell.
RushBaby on July 10, 2007 at 10:42 PM
By champion, I did not mean one who wins a sporting event, rather one who supports or defends another, such as champion of one’s cause. That is an accurate description of a lawyer in a litigation context. Haven’t you seen Law & Order?
tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 10:57 PM
LOL….I knew what you meant…and believe it or not I’ve never watched L & O!
DCJeff on July 10, 2007 at 11:03 PM
You hit a home run, Dusty!!
What this definitely proves is that all main stream media keeps up with the blogs, especially HA.
They have to since they don’t have any
specialjournalistic skills themselves.So they publish something and check back with HA to see if they are correct, or better yet to see how successful their “managing the news” agenda is.
I tell you…. the opportunities that the information age and the new media provides us with, couldn’t be sweeter!!!!!
I mean the MSM… they are so toasted!
I think I’ll go out and roast a couple hot dogs to celebrate the 4th of July again!!
Mcguyver on July 10, 2007 at 11:05 PM
What was freds? involvement with the dictator and asbestos lobbying jobs? How do we find out what his exact involvement was and just what affect it had?
csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Fake but accurate.
Accurate.
smellthecoffee on July 10, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Hey thanks, Mcguyver. Enjoy the hotdogs.
Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Journalism at its finest?
historybot on July 10, 2007 at 11:51 PM
News2Use on July 11, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Lost in transmission…..
That “appears to be” is not “confirmation of the name of the movie”.
News2Use on July 11, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Judge’s better than Hillary’s? Sure.
But would they be better than Romney’s? Or Brownback’s? Or Huckabee’s?
JamesP on July 11, 2007 at 12:59 AM
No, of course not. They have no standards for either.
ataloss on July 11, 2007 at 1:10 AM
“Are there different standards for online stories vs. print at the L.A. Times?”
I would say there are ALWAYS different standards for what appears on the web vs what appears in print or broadcast over the air. That is because web content can be changed at any time, you can’t Edit/Undo a newspaper after it is printed or “unbroadcast” a story.
That is why I don’t place as much trust in what is published on the web as I do that which is printed.
crosspatch on July 11, 2007 at 1:45 AM
And don’t misunderstand, maybe “trust” is a bad choice of words. What I mean is that I don’t have much faith in what I read on the net because I know I can look tomorrow and it can be different. My Sunday newspaper on the coffee table will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday.
crosspatch on July 11, 2007 at 1:47 AM
You are welcome.
The hot dogs were very delicious (buffalo meat), so much so that I am going to get me an inexhaustible supply for precious moments like these.
Mcguyver on July 11, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Ask any Rightwinger more angry than Rage Boy at President Bush whom he would vote for, Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton. He’ll look at you in disbelief that you had the audacity to ask such a question.
hadsil on July 11, 2007 at 2:31 AM
Anyone that reads this newspaper and believes anything they write deserves everything they get! Same thing for us here in Minnesota with the “Red Star and Tribune”…
sabbott on July 11, 2007 at 5:12 AM
What do you expect? The LATimes *LIES*. Liberals always lie. This is a surprise?
georgej on July 11, 2007 at 7:05 AM
So is the idea to make Fred appear too lefty leaning to be palatable to republicans so that he won’t win the party’s nomination and thus they will not have to face him in an election?
Crafty … Everyone ready to see the Fred hates immigrants BS should he win the nomination?
atadOFF on July 11, 2007 at 7:56 AM
Hillary already tried that. Twisting his comments about Cuban criminals being sent here by Castro as refugees so they could spy for him. She tried to make it sound like he was referring to all Cuban refugees. Ended up making her look like the fool that she is.
Kowboy on July 11, 2007 at 10:13 AM
[Mcguyver on July 11, 2007 at 1:52 AM]
Whatever floats your boat, dude.
Dusty on July 11, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I heard Fred on Hannity’s talk show yesterday. It was in front of a crowd and Fred was charming and funny, but still came across as a serious candidate. He explained that he is totally pro-life. When Sean asked him if he had lobbied on behalf of abortion groups, Fred said “No.” So I don’t know exactly what that means, but he really impressed me. I’ve been telling you guys all along that we have to have some star power to win this thing and Fred has that. He also has enough charm to handle the skeltons in the closet.
He could be the one.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 11:20 AM
tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Maybe, maybe not. You as a lawyer above all people should know that it takes a great deal more than events taking place in a close proximity to make a connection between assertions and facts. Even a case for circumstantial evidence requires far more substantiation than has so far been presented.
What do we actually know.
1) We have two highly biased witnesses that claim a certain action occoured.
2) we have one witness who the first two claim was directly involved in that action claiming that under no circumstances did the action take place.
3) we have one witness claiming that he does not remember the action taking place.
4) we have one single piece of documentation claiming that the action took place, that single piece of documentation however rely s on unsubstantiated hearsay, rendering the document of highly questionable value.
5) we have one witness statement regarding a supposed collaborating event, for which there are no collaborating witnesses.
6) the witness statement involves a unreleased movie with a very large window of proximity to the alleged event. Furthermore due to the substantial time variable between the window of proximity and the time of the assertion no direct correlation between the two events can be mandatorily derived.
What we have therefore is a plausible scenario minus adequate documentation for substantiation asserted by highly biased individuals for the express purpose of inflicting maxim political damage.
Sans the actual contract, billing records or pay documentation the assertion remains strictly a unsubstantiated political attack.
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Let me add one more thing that Fred has. He comes across as genuine. This quality could not be more important when it comes to running against Hillary, who is the opposite of genuine.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 11:24 AM
He is an actor…
WARNING Hogwash to follow:
It takes a big man to admit he is wrong. You must stand about 5′2″.
As I explained yesterday, this is an incident that took place 16 years ago. It is very, very understandable that billing records and financial records have been destroyed or discarded according to customary document retention procedures. I’m a lawyer. My firm purges records. We do not keep billing records over ten years old. There are plenty of reasons why the other documentation is not around.
The minutes go into the smaller corporate records file, which is keep as long as the corporation is active. That is why the 16 year-old minutes were still around. (Those minutes are a business record and would constitute an exception to the hearsay rule, by the way.)
This document, if it is what it purports to be (and there is no reason to question its authenticity) is very persuasive. It says Fred Thompson, Esq. was hired to aid with talks with the administration — not some other lawyer at the firm, but Fred Thompson. Other attempts to debunk this document have also failed. Fred was with the lobbying firm starting in April of 1991 and did not need to register as a lobbyist until shortly thereafter — which he did. So, the timing works.
There are up to 5 different witnesses that claim to have knowledge of his lobbying activities. They may be biased, but all witnesses are biased. It is the job of the jury (voter) to determine which biased witness is telling the truth Fred claims to be pro-life. Lobbying for abortion rights would hurt his election chances (in the primary). So, he is clearly biased too. Sununu, as a Republican not wanting to torpedo another Republican, may be covering for a friend. Who knows? In any event, Sununu’s denial when read in full is very weak. First he couldn’t recall, then he didn’t know, then he denied, but admitted he had no idea if someone else at the White House might have been lobbied by Fred.
Now we get to the anecdote. One witness described Fred acting out a scene from a Western. Everyone thought that this part of her story destroyed her credibility, because Fred had not been in a Western. But in fact, Fred was actually acting in that very same Western at the very same time that that conversation was supposed to have taken place. Furthermore, no one – I mean no one – except maybe the director’s family – saw this movie. It aired on USA Network several months later and was not very good. If the witness was going to fabricate an anecdote, why select a scene from an obscure film that was yet to be released? Why not claim he re-enacted a scene from Cape Fear (1991), Curly Sue (1991), Die Hard 2 (1990) or The Hunt for Red October (1990). It just doesn’t make sense, unless, of course, it is true.
Add all this to the fact that Fred was pro-choice in 1994 and is clearly trying to distance himself from his prior positions in order to appeal to the conservative base. Now, you have a compelling case. Fred is Pro-Choice. He lobbied to ease restrictions on abortions. Fast forward 16 years. Fred wants to appeal to Mr. And Mrs. NASCAR. He want to appear Pro-Life. He says he doesn’t remember filling out form stating he is Pro-Choice and denies lobbying. He is an actor / politician. Take your pick. He is lying.
This has been fun, but I am going back to work.
tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 12:36 PM
tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 12:36 PM
6′1″ actually, sorry but here is where I sink your battleship…Where is the contract. Your firm may purge records, but you do not purge contracts. I have contracts from when I was signed to Capitol Records and from MCA that are well over 20 years old, furthermore I know Capitol and MCA still have their copies of those contracts. You know as well as I do that nobody in their right mind purges a legal contract. They have a very bad habit of coming back and biting you in the a$$.
The fact that he is mentioned in the meeting minutes really doesn’t prove anything without a signed contract to prove that what was stated in the minutes wasn’t a unfulfilled future expectation. You as a lawyer should know that a verbal agreement to negotiate and a signed contract are very different things.
Capitol tried to assert that we had a contract at one point when in fact all we had was an agreement to negotiate, it looks good in a company’s board meeting minutes, but in truth it doesn’t mean a damn thing.
Sorry but you have failed to show that Thompson was acting in this film at the very same time, all you have done is show a window of proximity of plus or minus 1 year, not good enough.
Secondly I guarantee you a hell of a lot more people then just the director and his family saw it prior to its release. Everyone single person who worked on it saw it long before its release, and when I say everyone I mean everyone right down to the caterers and the security guards for the on site locations (long standing hollywood tradition).
Thirdly her assertion regarding the movie remains suspect because it would have taken no more than five minutes on imdb to discover what movies Fred had made on or around 1991. The problem of course being that her assertion of the event wasn’t made before the movie was released but long after it was. Were she on record in 1991 of telling this story her assertion would be substantiated, but she is not, her recollection is from 2007 regarding an event she asserts took place in 1991.
How many people were at this event? Where are the corroborating witnesses who also witnessed Fred acting out a scene from this movie. Surly a former senator turned actor hamming it up and performing a death scene would have attracted considerable notice and there would be others at this event who could provide corroboration of it. Failing corroborating witnesses all we have is hearsay.
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 1:19 PM
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 1:19 PM
~zing~
jdawg on July 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Unless we had a time stamped video tape of Fred’s lobbying activities (like we have of him espousing his Pro-Choice beliefs), the absolute truth can never really be known. I will admit to you that you are possibly right. It is possible that the document is a forgery, or was not accurate, or was accurate at the time but Fred changed his mind and did not go through with it. It is possible that all the witnesses are lying, except Fred and Sununu. It is possible that the witness’ anecdote was a clever fabrication which would at first totally undermine her credibility to such an extent that the reference to her was totally removed from the print version of the story, then only upon further examination (after the article went to print) was discovered to support her version of the events. All of your factual gymnasticas are possible, but you and I know that they are not very likely.
We have two disputed versions of the same story. We have to determine which version is more credible. Did he lobby or did he not? You are just not being objective if you think Fred’s version of events is more credible. We have a video tape of him in 1994 espousing a pro-choice belief. We have documentation confirming his retention to lobby in 1991. We have witnesses corroberating the documentation. One witness even told a detailed anecdote that at first appeared to undermine her credibilty and get her taken out of the story. Now that the anecdote has panned out, it adds far more credibility to her version of the story than Fred’s stock denial.
If you cannot see this, you do not want to and never will.
BTW Congrats on being above average height — are you really 6′1″ or 6′1/2″ and really exagerating that last half inch. I have always said I was 6′1″ when I was really 6′1 1/2″, but everyone rounds up. So, why do I round down? Now, I’m 6′2″. ;-)
tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM
This is ridiculous. Everyone knows my number one issue is pro-life. I worked in the pro-life movement for 20 yrs. If Fred did this, he did this. He says he is pro-life now. His record seems to show that he has voted for restrictions.
I was pro-choice in 1980, so what? We change.
We cannot afford to nit pick every little thing here. This is about keeping the she-monster out of the White House at a time where it is no longer just stupid to have her there, but dangerous.
Let’s get serious here.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I would like to add something about Hillary that no one seems to address. Bill Clinton did well (apart from the Monica thing) because he held his finger to the wind and did what the people wanted. From NAFTA to welfare reform he governed like a Republican when it suited the poll numbers. Bill just wanted to be loved.
We will NOT get this from Hillary. Hillary does not want to be loved. She wants to radically change the course of this country. Every liberal idea you have ever been afraid of will come to fruition if she is elected.
Sometimes I don’t think some of you get that.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Really. I have sympathy for this issue, but it is not my top priority. A low level pro choice candidate (not late term) would not be show stopper for me. Absolute seems a little talibanish to me. I can’t come up with any mitigating circumstances, but I can’t say that reasonable ones don’t exist.
saiga on July 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM
tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Heh heh never said I couldn’t see it. I just refuse to concede something that hasn’t actually been proven. Like I said, the scenario is quite plausible, it does not however have the sufficient preponderance of evidence to be ruled as proven fact.
What bothers me the most isn’t what the story would represent were it proven to be factual, I don’t have any problem with Fred having been pro-choice way back in 1991. As far as I am concerned it isn’t now nor ever has been a significant issue. What bothers me is that the story obviously is emanating from the Clinton personal destruction attack machine.
Having seen the way the Clinton attack machine works I am not taking anything that comes out of it as fact until it is indisputably proven to be so, and even then I am going to take it with a large grain of salt.
Way to many people have suffered irreparable damage at the hands of the Clinton attack machine, who later turned out to be completely innocent of the charges made by the Clinton attack machine. So no I’m not accepting anything they produce at face value.
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 3:27 PM
tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Nope no exaggerating, its a genuine 6′1″. Hell 6′3″ in my boots, no need to exaggerate. Now my weight, I’ve been known to exaggerate a few pounds on occasion, 160 lbs at 6′1″ just seems a bit light in the a$$ to me…So I sometimes fudge it up 20lbs or so…
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 3:33 PM
saiga,
I can only say that it became my top priority in 1988 when I saw my daughter’s heartbeat at 6 weeks on a special sonogram (for the time) I realized that this was a person. And she had every right to live whether I was happy about it or not. (I, of course, was very happy)
The heart that beats in her today is the same heart I saw on that sonogram. Same heart, same child. It would have been as wrong to take her life then as it would be to take her life now.
So, it’s a big deal to me. So big that I didn’t think I could vote for Rudy if he got the nomination. But then I realized that if Hillary won then no unborn child would ever be safe. She is a “anytime for any reason a woman can abort” kind of politician. So I would vote for Rudy if it keeps her from the Presidency. Her pick of judges would be a nightmare.
So, if Fred has a bit of a mixed up past on this issue, I can live with that. He says he is pro-life now. That’s enough for me.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 3:48 PM
No. What you have been telling us all along is that John McCain is our only hope, the only man who can save us from Hillary and the only reason it could be John McCain was because he was the only tier 1 candidate who was always pro-life.
And you thought I didn’t read what you wrote.
JackStraw on July 11, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Well Mr. JackStraw, I wrote that when Fred wasn’t even a mention…so there.
I never said it could only be McCain because he was always pro-life. I said he was the one because he was the only one with star power.
I guess you really weren’t reading what I wrote…;-)
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Oy vey. The day when a woman admits she was wrong is still elusive.
And I was so close……
JackStraw on July 11, 2007 at 4:09 PM
JackStraw on July 11, 2007 at 4:09 PM
No, I really dont think you were……
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 4:10 PM
JackStraw on July 11, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Oh…and quit picking on the cutie pie…..
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Yea, I really was. If you go and read some of the threads at Ace you will see exactly what I am talking about. Same argument all pro-lifers make until they realize their candidate ain’t gonna win and then they try to convince themselves that while some candidates are flip floppers, others are principled evolvers.
And stop sucking up.
JackStraw on July 11, 2007 at 4:16 PM
tommylotto: My ex-husband’s ethnicity is Sicilian. That’s all I really needed to know about you. But you’re a lawyer on top of that? Are you sure you’re conservative? I must say your vendetta against Fred! shows your Italian roots. You have so much vigor in defending the L.A. Times and a couple of Democratic hacks. Or is that just the lawyer in you?
Sultry Beauty on July 11, 2007 at 4:40 PM
JackStraw,
I have never referred to anyone who was once pro-choice and now pro-life as a “flip flopper.” I don’t think Romney was either. I like Romney. I think he would be a great candidate too. I am also not saying Frdd is a principled evolver. I’ve been around politics long enough to know that most politicians aren’t principled about anything.
Btw, I did admit I was wrong about McCain several times on Ace’s threads. So there…again.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Arguing can be fun. Not sure if that’s because of the Sicilian thing or the lawyer thing. Does it matter?
I have to gag when I think I may have help the LA Times. I posted about “Keep The Change” on a few sites early yesterday afternoon, then a few hours later the LA Times issues its correction explaining the dissapearing information. If I thought I helped the LAT explain its bad journalism, I would throw-up. I subscribe to the print version and yell at it every morning. I tied canceling it once before, but have you ever tried reading the LA Daily News? — its pathetic.
Hawkish? Yes, Patriotic? Yes, America First? Yes, Conservative? I dunno. That lable is pretty broad.
I attack Fred, because I like Rudy. Their abortion stands are very similiar, if not the same. Rudy has the guts to be straight with us, while Fred is just pandering (re, lying) to the base for political expeidency (like Mitt). Someone needs to tell the social conservatives, with their hot button issues, that there are much more important issues facing our nation. All the good Republican candidates have to be disingenuous and flip flop to think they have a chance. Rudy has shown courage to stand up to them. Fred and Mitt, not so much. We know Rudy can fight the mob and win. We know he can keep his head while buildings collapse around him. We know he can b!tchslap a room full of NYT reporters. We know he understands the war on terror. He is a proven executive with leadership skills. Fred has no executive experience, has never demonstrated leadership skills, and yet the Fredheads on this site think the sun shines out his a$$ even though he is just as big a RINO as Rudy — just not as honest and without the experience and leadership skills.
Good grief.
tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 5:42 PM
See… I have a serious problem with the whole: you can’t vote for Fred! because he’s really a RINO but I can vote for Rudy because he is a RINO we can trust.
I remember with the Straight Talk Express vs. W thing that I was being told how conservative Pres. Bush was compared to Sen. McCain. That’s true, compared to Sen. McCain most conservatives are REALLY conservative.
I’m tired of letting the mainstream (i.e. non-conservatives or those that hold more moderate to mainstream political views)define candidates I may or may not vote for when it comes to Republicans. You can have an R behind your name doesn’t make you conservative. I don’t have moderates or liberals define conservatives for me. I define them for myself and know a conservative by the actions they take. Pres. Bush is not conservative. Yet most moderates, liberals, and the MSM will have me believe he’s not only conservative but ultra conservative to the point of extreme.
Teddy Bear is my favorite President of all time because he held most of my ideals. However, I wouldn’t consider Teddy conservative either. He held a lot of liberal opinions. What I did like is the conservative views devoid of big business idealogy. Conservative entrepreneurial ingenuity is important. Big business dictating to the little folk without our ability to have an address of greivances, not okay. Imigration is a clear example, and how we end up with conservatives going against their own principals. Principals before personalities is my motto.
Sultry Beauty on July 11, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Tommylotto,
Rudy and Fred’s stance on abortion are no where near similar. Starting with the worst, Partial Birth Abortion. Rudy was against the ban and Fred voted for the ban. This is big because almost all Americans are against this gruesome procedure.
Fred may have been somewhat pro-choice in the early 90’s, but he says the birth of his daughter solidified his convictions on the pro-life issue and his voting record reflects that. Especially important to me as a parent, he supported parental consent for a minor and a 24 hour waiting period. And he voted against public funding for abortions in the military.
Rudy, on the other hand, has opposed all restrictions to abortion. He supports abortion so much that in the’90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, the largest owner and operator of abortion facilities in the country.
If anyone is a liar, it is Rudy. He says he thinks abortion is morally wrong and he would always encourage anyone to have the baby, yet he gives his personal money to a organization that promotes and destroys our most vulnerable. I mean give me a break. You can be of the mind not to want the govt involved, but to contribute your own money to something you think is “morally wrong?” Rudy has hardly been straight with us.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Actually from his web site:
He has also made the promise to appoint judges similar to Roberts and Alito. From what we know of Fred, I see little difference.
Yes Rudy did give small cash contributions to a group that gives both adoption and abortion counseling, but what’s more “culpable” from a pro-life standpoint, to give a small amount of money, or to take a large amount of money from one of these organizations to use your political clout to lobby for an easing of restrictions on abortion. I dunno.
tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 7:32 PM
What’s not to like about T.R.? Except maybe splitting the party and allowing professor Wilson to be elected. Being liberal back then was a good thing. Liberalism didn’t jump the shark in my opinion until the late 60’s early 70’s.
tommylotto on July 11, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Come on tommylotto! He supports restrictions now.
Planned parenthood gives adoption counseling? What a joke. Trust me when I say, they only give the appearance of it. In the 80’s we sent girls into the clinics to see what kind of “counseling” they received and not once did they advise adoption. This is a multi billion dollar business that profits off the agony of women and the destruction of their children.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Like Fred said, he didn’t solidify his pro-life position until his daughter was born, which I believe was 2003. Those modern sonogram machines will do that to a person. Hard to argue the life thing there now.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 9:17 PM
That’s why I don’t take your word that Rudy is the better candidate than Fred!
It’s this part that makes me sad about Teddy Bear. Wishy-washy in his elder years. This is the BEST example of 3rd party spoilers that I know. And we never learn from history now do we? There are lots of similarities to what just happened and is happening in the Senate to this era. People do strange things when disenchanted with their leaders and feeling not “heard”!
There are many aspects to admire about Pres. T. Roosevelt but the Progressive Party Platform wasn’t one of them. Liberalism at that time was a good thing? Hmmm.. pray-tell… why don’t you enumerate the items below that were a good thing and which items you’d have Rudy impliment in the current atmosphere? Seems there are a number of issues that are still quite relevant today, huh?:
“The Progressive Party, Platform (August, 1912)
The conscience of the people, in a time of grave national problems, has called into being a new party, born of the nation’s sense of justice.
We of the Progressive party here dedicate ourselves to the fulfillment of the duty laid upon us by our fathers to- maintain the government of the people, by the people and for the people whose foundations they laid.
THE OLD PARTIES
Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.
From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.
The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican party, the fatal incapacity of the Democratic party to deal with the new issues of the new time, have compelled the people to forge a new instrument of government through which to give effect to their will in laws and institutions.
Unhampered by tradition, uncorrupted by power, undismayed by the magnitude of the task, the new party offers itself as the instrument of the people to sweep away old abuses, to build a new and nobler commonwealth.
EQUAL SUFFRAGE
The Progressive party, believing that no people can justly claim to be a true democracy which denies political rights on account of sex, pledges itself to the task of securing equal suffrage to men and women alike.
CORRUPT PRACTICES
We pledge our party to legislation that will compel strict limitation of all campaign contributions and expenditures, and detailed publicity of both before as well as after primaries and elections.
PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE
We pledge our party to legislation compelling the registration of lobbyists; publicity of committee hearings except on foreign affairs, and recording of all votes in committee; and forbidding federal appointees from holding office in State or National political organizations, or taking part as officers or delegates in political conventions for the nomination of elective State or National officials.
THE COURTS
The Progressive party demands such restriction of the power of the courts as shall leave to the people the ultimate authority to determine fundamental questions of social welfare and public policy. To secure this end, it pledges itself to provide:
1. That when an Act, passed under the police power of the State, is held unconstitutional under the State Constitution, by the courts, the people, after an ample interval for deliberation, shall have an opportunity to vote on the question whether they desire the Act to become law, notwithstanding such decision.
2. That every decision of the highest appellate court of a State declaring an Act of the Legislature unconstitutional on the ground of its violation of the Federal Constitution shall be subject to the same review by the Supreme Court of the United States as is now accorded to decisions sustaining such legislation.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
We believe that the issuance of injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes should be prohibited when such injunctions would not apply when no labor disputes existed.
We believe also that a person cited for contempt in labor disputes, except when such contempt was committed in the actual presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere with the proper administration of justice, should have a right to trial by jury.
SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JUSTICE
The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for:
Effective legislation looking to the prevention of industrial accidents, occupational diseases, overwork, involuntary unemployment, and other injurious effects incident to modern industry;
The fixing of minimum safety and health standards for the various occupations, and the exercise of the public authority of State and Nation, including the Federal Control over interstate commerce, and the taxing power, to maintain such standards;
The prohibition of child labor;
Minimum wage standards for working women, to provide a “living wage” in all industrial occupations;
The general prohibition of night work for women and the establishment of an eight-hour day for women and young persons;
One day’s rest in seven for all wage workers;
The eight-hour day in continuous twentv-four-hour industries:
The abolition of the convict contract labor system; substituting a system of prison production for governmental consumption only; and the application of prisoners’ earnings to the support of their dependent families;
Publicity as to wages, hours and conditions of labor; full reports upon industrial accidents and diseases; and the opening to public inspection of all tallies, weights, measures and check systems on labor products;
Standards of compensation for death by industrial accident and injury and trade disease which will transfer the burden of lost earnings from the families of working people to the industry, and thus to the community;
The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use;
The development of the creative labor power of America by lifting the last load of illiteracy from American youth and establishing continuation schools for industrial education under public control and encouraging agricultural education and demonstration in rural schools;
We favor the organization of the workers, men and women, as a means of protecting their interests and of promoting their progress. . . .
BUSINESS
We demand that the test of true prosperity shall be the benefit conferred thereby on all the citizens, not confined to individuals or classes.
We therefore demand a strong National regulation of inter-State corporations. The corporation is an essential part of modern business. The concentration of modern business, in some degree, is both inevitable and necessary for national and international business efficiency. But the existing concentration of vast wealth under a corporate system, unguarded and uncontrolled by the Nation, has placed in the hands of a few men enormous, secret, irresponsible power over the daily life of the citizen - a power insufferable in a free government and certain of abuse.
We urge the establishment of a strong Federal administrative commission of high standing, which shall maintain permanent and active supervision over industrial corporations engaged in interstate commerce, or such of them as are of public importance.
Such a commission must enforce the complete publicity of those corporate transactions which are of public interest; must attack unfair competition, false capitalization and special privilege.
We favor strengthening the Sherman Law by prohibiting agreement to divide territory or limit output; refusing to sell to customers who buy from business rivals; to sell below cost in certain areas while maintaining higher prices in other places; using the power of transportation to aid or injure special business concerns; and other unfair trade practices.”
Sultry Beauty on July 11, 2007 at 9:30 PM
fred? is a fake and a liar. The more he lies about his flip-flop on his “pro baby murder” stance in 1994, the more clear it becomes that he is more actor and arm-twisting lobbyist than dedicated public servant.
“liar fred?”, YOU STINK!
csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM
cs, we all know you hate Fred!
All other issues aside, are you telling us that you hate him so much you’d vote for Hitlery if he was the nominee?
jdawg on July 12, 2007 at 6:45 PM
I doubt fred? will make it the nomination vote, much less having to vote for him in the general.
freds? gots lots of ’splaining to do.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 9:20 PM
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Answer the question.
Do you hate Fred! so much you would vote for Hitlery if he were the nominee?
Quit dancing. If you refuse to answer, I’ll have to assume the answer is _yes_ you would.
jdawg on July 12, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Nice try. Take your straw man argument to someone who will fall for it.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 6:19 AM
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 6:19 AM
Answer the question - quit dodging.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Look it up yourself. It’s all over HA if you really cared to find out.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 2:49 PM
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 2:49 PM
More dodgin and weavin. Quit dancing, and answer the question. All I ever see you do is spew hate for Fred.
jdawg on July 13, 2007 at 3:42 PM