LAT on Fred: That’s not Reagan, that’s a RINO, baby! Yeah! Update: Viguerie piles on

posted at 10:35 am on July 10, 2007 by Allahpundit

Still no correction, clarification, explanation, elucidation, or further elaboration from them about the The Cowboy Scene That Wasn’t. With the credibility of that piece vanishing like details from an LA Times hit piece, they’re doubling down with a surer hand — the case, based upon his senate record, that Fred’s nothing but a big ol’ McCain-hugging RINO. Why, the subhead even invokes the scarlet “M” in describing.

This makes two Times pieces in four days aimed detonating his conservative credentials. They’re sure looking to take him down early. Fear the Fred:

An actor, lawyer and lobbyist, Thompson seems to have earned more forgiveness than McCain for breaking with conservative dogma, in part because his maverick streak was tempered by an easygoing manner and a willingness to stick with the GOP on most issues. But it may also be because conservatives who back him now know less about Thompson’s Senate record than they do about his performance as a district attorney in the television hit “Law & Order.”

“He carries the same baggage that McCain carries,” said James Bopp Jr., an antiabortion activist who is backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. “Time does dim memories, and people need to be reminded of his support for McCain-Feingold.”

“Thompson had a chance to show leadership and did not,” said Larry Klayman, the conservative lawyer who issued the “wanted” poster to criticize Thompson for not running more aggressive hearings on President Clinton’s fundraising.

“I would not vote for him for president.”…

Sen. Thompson was a central architect, not a casual supporter, of [McCain-Feingold]. Republican leaders and conservative activist groups bitterly opposed the measure, which they believed would disproportionately hurt the GOP and its allies…

When the measure was on the Senate floor in 2001, Thompson was part of a core group of about 10 senators that met every morning to strategize before the day’s debate. He was so wedded to the issue that he sometimes complained that his name was not included in its moniker, according to a Senate aide who worked with him on the legislation. And when the law was challenged before the Supreme Court, he filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting it…

The way Thompson conducted the hearings [on alleged Democratic fundraising abuses in 1996] may raise questions about whether he has the zest for cut-and-thrust partisanship that many conservatives want in their leaders: Although conservatives wanted to keep the focus on Clinton and the Democrats, Thompson defied Lott and broadened the scope of the investigation, giving Democrats opportunities to question GOP practices.

Apologies for the long blockquote but you never know how much of this might disappear into the ether in a few hours if parts of it turn out to be wrong. Maybe it’s worth just screencapping the page, eh? I do like that reference, though, to partisanship while Henry Waxman spends his days flinging subpoenas to the immense delight of the fight-fight-fightin’ nutroots. If the red pen does come out, let’s hope that at least stays in.

Exit question: Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

Update: “Fear the Fred” indeed, says Richard Viguerie. He’s gone RINO-hunting!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Fred scares the begeebers out of Democrats.

1sttofight on July 10, 2007 at 10:42 AM

While Fred’s still rehearsing for his big campaign roll-out, he’s letting others in the media define him. They’re not piling on because they’re afraid, so much as that there’s really been no pushback from him. He better get moving if he wants to catch this wave of popularity.

Big S on July 10, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Fred is not a staunch conservative. All you have to do is look up his record in the Senate at the American Conservative Union (ACU) to verify that. Nevertheless, none of the other Republican candidates are staunch conservatives either. Fred might be the best choice among them, but lets hear the debate.

Maxx on July 10, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Exit question: Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

Not me, but maybe that’s because I don’t ask “WWJD” before I decide who to vote for.

Actually, I don’t vote at all anymore. I can’t imagine why anyone would.

Enrique on July 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Did I miss the link?

Ironically, I think the LAT is helping him here. I think a significant numbers of conservatives are irritated at establishment thinking – the kind represented in an attempt to ram through an amnesty bill by insulting the public – and have cast Fred into the hero role to fix the problem. The LAT labeling him as an a guy who irritates the GOP establishment is more likely to help him then hurt him at this particular junction.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 10:45 AM

An ‘anti-abortion activist’ backing Mitt? What a joke!

DCJeff on July 10, 2007 at 10:46 AM

I can no longer support Fred. Thank you LAT. I eagerly await your next groundbreaking expose to tell me who I should vote for. We are so lucky to have the media to watch out for us.

brak on July 10, 2007 at 10:47 AM

All this Fred-is-a-liberal exposé stuff the left is using now on Fred, will come back to haunt them once he gets the nomination, a time when they would normally be trying to paint the Republican candidate as too right wing and inflexible to be elected by a moderate public.

jihadwatcher on July 10, 2007 at 10:50 AM

As long as he’s (or she’s) not a New York liberal, the candidate is acceptable to me.

Run Fred! Run.

saved on July 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Richard Viguere is pretty hard hitting…but unless Newt gets in there is’nt a true conservative in the race with a chance…

DCJeff on July 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Forgot to add the link to the Times piece. Fixed.

Allahpundit on July 10, 2007 at 10:54 AM

If the LAT and NYCrimes are against Fred! then I’ll vote twice for him!

Hey! I’m in Kentucky, we can do that down here. ;)

Pilgrim on July 10, 2007 at 10:55 AM

I love the things Fred! has been saying. He seems to be right down the line in terms of what he says and what my values are. The only ideology I abhor more than a liberal one is a political one which says anything or everything, and means none of it. Don’t disappoint me, Fred!

samuelrylander on July 10, 2007 at 10:55 AM

This is almost too funny. The democrats are trying to stop the Fred! with 2 basic issues.

1.) McCain Feingold – dollars to donuts %90 of most voters hear that and go “Whaaa??”

2.) Fred doesn’t believe that women should be jailed for having an illegal abortion.

Saints preserve us. What a heathen.

thareb on July 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM

This is almost too funny. The democrats are trying to stop the Fred! with 2 basic issues.

1.) McCain Feingold – dollars to donuts %90 of most voters hear that and go “Whaaa??”

2.) Fred doesn’t believe that women should be jailed for having an illegal abortion.

Saints preserve us. What a heathen.

thareb on July 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM

I always look to liberal left wing rags to help me determine the conservative credentials of potential republican nominees.

Or then again, maybe I don’t.

JayHaw Phrenzie on July 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

You mean, the “revelations” themselves, or the fact that bringing down Fred has suddenly become the LaLa Times’ crusade du jour?

I already knew about the McCain/Feingold support. As for any lobbying work he may or may not have done for whomever: I think if Fred wanted to, he could easily counter that angle with a Giuliani-like pledge to nominate only Roberts-like judges. I think such a pledge would even be more believable — or, rather, believable to more people — coming from him than from Giuliani. (Not to imply that I don’t find Giuliani believable.)

What does surprise me is that Fred isn’t doing anything right now. When is he going to get off his butt and actually start campaigning? His short video response a couple months back to Michael Moore was dynamite; some more of those might go a long way towards putting out little fires like this…

(Full disclosure: I ain’t carrying water for anyone yet…)

Lee on July 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM

“The conservatism he exemplifies…,” wrote Jonathan Rauch in Reason magazine, “is no longer a program. It is a style of talking.”

From the update. Refers to L Alexander, but that is a problem across the board.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 10:59 AM

If Thompson wil fight against Islamofascism to win, they rest is trivia.

profitsbeard on July 10, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Exit question: Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

*buffing fingernails* Yawn!

Is that the best they got? We’re not looking for a perfect 10 here, just someone who’ll fight the Muslim bad guys, stop the Mexican invasion, and nominate SCOTUS judges who respect the constitution. Fred’s all that and a bag of chips.

Mojave Mark on July 10, 2007 at 11:01 AM

JayHaw Phrenzie on July 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM

ditto

nailinmyeye on July 10, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Considering the “diverse” makeup of the population of L.A. I’m surprised the Times is still published in English.

infidel4life on July 10, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Fear the Fred! Its comical hear clueless left coast liberals theorize about what matters to me!

Nyog_of_the_Bog on July 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Soon the MSM will expose Fred for having once received a mass mailing from the “Hair Club for Men!”

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 10, 2007 at 11:06 AM

I always look to liberal left wing rags to help me determine the conservative credentials of potential republican nominees.

Or then again, maybe I don’t.

JayHaw Phrenzie on July 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Aren’t they talking about his liberal credentials?

Big S on July 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM

So the LAT strategy to get McCain the nomination is to crap on Fred?

Come on. The money laundering, er “legalized gaming”, isn’t going anywhere under the Frederator. See, he voted for the protect the “legalized gaming” interests, er McCain-Feingold bill.

gabriel sutherland on July 10, 2007 at 11:08 AM

…But if vacancies occur in the court during his presidency, would he have the fortitude to nominate and fight for judges who share his federalist sentiments and on that basis vote…

After the Miers episode, I would also like to know that he would also be able to identify such judges.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 11:09 AM

It strikes me as old news. He’s already explained why he supported the measure, and why he now believes it was in error. We can make up our own minds whether to accept his explanation without the LAT telling us what we think.

cadetwithchips2 on July 10, 2007 at 11:11 AM

One of Fred’s replies to some of the smears was “you’ve tried to use the same attacks in 1994 and it got you to within 20 points of me,” which is pure class.

The best defense against this is to not pay attention, and it’ll go away. Dignifying such crap with a response would only legitimize it and give it more attention.

Besides, these attacks will only improve his chances. Conservatives aren’t worried about him not being conservative enough. But if liberals believe half of LAT’s “facts,” all of a sudden he’ll look very appealing to them.

AlexB on July 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Exit question: Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

Nope. Not in the least, even if it’s true. I’m not looking for a lifelong zealot on what the MSM considers ‘conservative issues.’ I’m looking for someone with a generally conservative outlook, flexible yet forthright, with the character traits required to navigate the coming storms. I’m willing to accept certain compromises to get someone who will stand up for what my beliefs (in the broad, high-level sense).

No one can predict what’s going to happen next week much less over the course of the next presidential term (or two). I don’t really care about how Fred made money years ago. I care about how he (or others) will stand up under the pressure of unexpected and unforeseeable events (read: disasters) in the next 5-10 years. It’s the character, the worldview, the philosophy, the steadfastness during the campaign that I’m looking for. It’s not the small, individual policy positions from years ago that amount to inside baseball.

Thomas the Wraith on July 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM

I’d be more bothered if the LAT liked him. C’mon Fred, jump in the ring and start swinging!

revolutionismyname on July 10, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Exit answer: Not bothered by it at all. AAMOF, I’m encouraged that they seem to be so scared of him. Fred Fear is in full bloom right now.

Barntender on July 10, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Yay, another Fred Thread. A Fread.

I don’t know why senators even bother running for president. Your voting record will always come back to bite you in the arse.

Any of you kids out there who want to be president someday, get a job as governor first.

reaganaut on July 10, 2007 at 11:20 AM

We’re not looking for a perfect 10 here, just someone who’ll fight the Muslim bad guys, stop the Mexican invasion, and nominate SCOTUS judges who respect the constitution. Fred’s all that and a bag of chips

Ditto.

apostle26 on July 10, 2007 at 11:25 AM

and nominate SCOTUS judges who respect the constitution

Would that include judges who understand the 1st Amendment better than Fred does?

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Fred must be scaring the hell out of somebody at the LAT. He hasn’t announced and they’re attacking him like the dims have been attacking Bush since they got their “mandate” of one in the Senate in the’06 elections. The problem is the GOP never carries California anyway so they are just preaching to the choir.

volsense on July 10, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Considering the “diverse” makeup of the population of L.A. I’m surprised the Times is still published in English.

Uhm, actually, nobody there really reads it.

JiangxiDad on July 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Would that include judges who understand the 1st Amendment better than Fred does?

Yes, but how high a bar is that really?

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Any of you kids out there who want to be president someday, get a job as governor first

Some idiot told me that there were only like 50 jobs like that in the whole US. What an a-hole.

JiangxiDad on July 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Record, smecord, I’m having trouble staying attracted to a guy with an office that’s as clean as a whistle. Can we trust a lawyer whose office is that neat and deigns to have only one binder on his desk at a time?

If you can’t get an in-office pic of him, do a photoshop or something before I become thoroughly disillusioned with Fred!.

Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 11:42 AM

I wonder if we put together a list of all the candidates Richard Viguerie doesn’t want for POTUS, we could figure out who he’s for. I can see he’s for one non-candidate, but I’m not familiar with his writings to know if he’s voiced an opinion on all the actual candidates.

Anyone have a list of Viguerie’s critiques of the actual candidates?

jaime on July 10, 2007 at 11:42 AM

reaganaut on July 10, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Any of you kids out there who want to be president someday, get a job as governor first.

Excuse me……………….Must I remind you….We have tried former governors as POTUS before, and lately it really hasnt been working out so well.

Jimmy Carter=former governor
Bill Clinton=former governor
GW Bush=former governor,

OK so the last time we had a former actor it worked out pretty damn well, enough with the former governors and lets go back and try another former actor.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Exit question: Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

Not me, but maybe that’s because I don’t ask “WWJD” before I decide who to vote for.

Actually, I don’t vote at all anymore. I can’t imagine why anyone would.

Enrique on July 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Oooohhh…ouch. Enrique, I vote like it’s mandated by the Vatican, and look what I have gotten for my righteousness:

State Rep: a recently appointed man, Al Riley, just named the single most liberal assemblyman in Illinois.
State Senator: Maggie Crotty, reliable Dem lefty.
Governor: Rod “the Hairdo” Baloneyvich, the most hated man in Illinois, and currently in the midst of a 5-week holdover of the General Assembly while he attempts to force a budget agreement on a several-billion$ tax increase to pay for the “1.4 million Illinois citizens who don’t have health insurance”.
House Rep: Jesse “Bonehead” Jackson, Jr.
Senators: Osama Obama, and Dick “the Weenie” Durbin, nuff said.

Maybe I need to try your regimen.

Jaibones on July 10, 2007 at 11:46 AM

…like the LA Times would write something positive about someone who resembles their least favorite governor?

MadisonConservative on July 10, 2007 at 11:46 AM

How could I forget!

I also live in Crook County, where my illustrious County Board President, Todd “Toddler” Stroger, the son of the previous President, was puppeted into his seat in a backroom deal between the various crooks and liars who run the Illinois democrat mob, Richie Daley, Mike Madigan, and a bunch of race minority capos who negotiate away their constituents’ interests for fun and profit.

Jaibones on July 10, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Nope, not bothered a bit.

Jaibones on July 10, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Jaibones on July 10, 2007 at 11:46 AM

House Rep: Jesse “Bonehead” Jackson, Jr.
Senators: Osama Obama, and Dick “the Weenie” Durbin, nuff said.

Maybe I need to try your regimen.

Man if I were you I would be thinking that perhaps god just doesnt like me and is messen with me…

This of course coming from someone whose senators are Barbra Boxer and Dianne “so what if I fed my husbands company 1 billion dollars in government contracts” Feinstein.

Edit: On the other hand my congress critter is Duncan Hunter, sooo…

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 11:53 AM

What is so ironic here is that the LAT and NYT believe that they have enough credibility among conservatives to actually influence their votes. By trying to smear Fred! as somewhat liberal, they may actually influence the votes of their primary readership (liberals) and not in the direction they expect.

LAT and NYT – Thanks for the helping hand!

MarkM on July 10, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Exit question: Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

I’m bothered by the people who aren’t bothered by Fred!’s slender resume.

rho on July 10, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Fred Thompson’s strong poll showings must really have the LA Times editors’ panties in a wad. Here they are, attacking a person before he even declares he’s a candidate. Watch for more of this as the MSM tools up to not only pick the Democrat candidate for 2008, but the Republican candidate as well.

Jonas Parker on July 10, 2007 at 12:04 PM

rho on July 10, 2007 at 12:03 PM

I’m bothered by the people who aren’t bothered by Fred!’s slender resume.

Boo friken Hoo…

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 12:05 PM

I gave up on watching any Network TV over 10 years ago. The same for MSM newspapers and magazines. (Too tedious and one sided).

I’ve received my political news from the Net (conservative sites) and most recently “FoxNews”.

Until only recently, through those sources, did I hear that Fred was one of the actors on “Law & Order”. (yes, it’s a dark, deep cave that I live in). Before that I’d see him once and awhile in a movie or two and liked his style.

However, I had noticed him over the years on one Senate panel after another, and loosely followed him and his political career with interest since the ’90′s. From what I noticed I always thought of him as good White House material.

Nothing from the MSM suprises me anymore. It has to be expected from that lot.

A bit of background: I retired back in 1999 with 100% VA service connected disabliy from wounds recieved during my involvment as a young US Marine in Viet Nam, and now have the time to follow the ’08 campaign (and more) with much more personal involvement in the future. Hang Tuff people. Semper Fi!

“Sgt. Khe Sahn” is baaaccckkk.

1GooDDaDDy on July 10, 2007 at 12:07 PM

I’m confused. A couple days ago a fred?head told me that record trumped rhetoric. Now all I hear is that freds? rhetoric trumps his record.

Which is it?

As far as the LAT is concerned, I don’t get this automatic dismissal of an article because the paper is liberal. I don’t trust ANY article from ANY paper until I research the information myself and if that information is factual, then regardless of it’s source, it is valid.

Now, who is this Richard Viguerie guy? He seems to have pretty solid conservative values and he is reporting a lot of the same stuff I have discovered about freddie boy. He references freds? piss poor senate record. He lays out the connections fred? has made for himself and they are more of the same Bush type RINO. freds? record is all over the place on abortion, and now he is lying about it. Then there is his questionable work as a lobbyist and his reputation for being lazy. Added to that is his work on McCain/Feingold, the worst POS legislation to come down the pike in years. His fingerprints are all over it and not only is he making excuses for it, he defied the conservative base to shove it to passage.

He lays out a pretty damaging case against fredddie boy and any serious conservative will research every claim this guy makes just so you can be the best informed conservative possible.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:08 PM

This is a story because you Fred heads have annointed him the conservative savior riding in on his galliant white steed to rescue us from Rudy the RINO. Well, what do we know about Fred:

Although he supports overruling Roe v. Wade, and state’s right to decide, he ultimatelt believes it is a woman’s right to choose — HE IS PRO-CHOICE

Documents pre-dating his campaign unequivocally state that he was paid to lobby for a Pro-Choice group to ease restrictions on abortions – AND HE TOOK THE MONEY

His big role in Watergate was really as a MOLE FOR NIXON.

He voted not to impeach Clinton on one charge.

He flubbed the investigation of Clinton’s financing

He was an architect of McCain/ Feingold campaign finance reform – SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH

He is an actor – actually more of a character…

He served up some juicy scripted red meat in a bunch audio pod casts that duped a bunch of righty nutroots.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 12:12 PM

AlexB:

The best defense against this is to not pay attention, and it’ll go away. Dignifying such crap with a response would only legitimize it and give it more attention.

Unfortunately, in a presidential campaign, I don’t know if that’s true. Besides, by Jan 2009 we will have had a long 8 years of a presidency who took that approach way too often, much to the detriment, not just of his own presidency, but of the nation. I’d rather see a candidate who will respond to these attacks at least occasionally. Again, the Michael Moore response video showed that Fred can be a master of this.

The bottom line is, if Fred is really running for president, he’d better get off the couch and start acting like it, because — unfortunately — these silly hit pieces can quickly metastasize into memes that are much harder to explain away later on.

Lee on July 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 12:12 PM

One word of warning, you should clarify that not all fred? supporters are nutroots, but that there certainly is a segment out there that consumes freds? BS like a one-eyed, flee bitten, castrated dog, lapping up the barf running out of the bottom of a green dumpster behind a downtown “pay by the hour” flop house.

Most of the fred? supporters here are concerned conservatives who haven’t yet made up their mind and desperately want this coward to get in the race and actually take some solid positions in a hostile debate format.

You’ll figure out reaaaaalllll quick which belong to which group. Ignore the former. The latter are good for a decent conversation.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:20 PM

The Richard Viguere piece was a joke- the entire article can be summed up with “McCain-Feingold”! “James Baker”! “Abortion statements”!

Nowhere does he suggest who would be a better choice, though he does have on his website a prominently displayed plea to let troofer crank Ron Paul enter the debates. Excuse me for not taking Mr. Viguere seriously.

Fred isn’t perfect- his support for McCain-Feingold was disappointing and he hasn’t conformed to the conservative cause 100% of the time. However when faced with a choice between Fred and the RINO trio of RudyMcRomney, he’s about the only electable choice left- and one who unlike RINO Rudy, Maverick McCain or FlipFlop Mitt is conservative enough that I’m comfortable voting for him despite his imperfections.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Lee on July 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Unfortunately, in a presidential campaign, I don’t know if that’s true.

Lyndon Johnston once said of one of his political opponents, “I don’t give a damn if he beats his wife, I just want to hear the SOB deny it in public”. Fred wryly has chosen to remain silent when the Clinton machine has attempted to employee that Johnston tactic against him.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Lee on July 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM

The minute fred? backed away from the fight with MM, denied his understanding of McCain/Feingold, and denied the LAT story, is the minute he cannot claim silence anymore. freds? trying, like the actor he is, to have it both ways. This scrutiny of fred? will not end until he announces, and then the real fun starts. fred? will actually have to find a way to nuance his positions with the lies and half truths he’s been telling for years.

It oughta be fun.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:24 PM

OK, a litte reminder: Don’t feed the troll. Don’t feed the troll. Don’t feed the troll. Don’t feed the troll. Don’t feed the troll. DON’T FEED THE TROLL.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 12:25 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:20 PM

The latter are good for a decent conversation.

Coming from a idiot individual who has never even remotely attempted to have a decent conversation regarding Fred this is pure hypocritical comedy gold…….

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Most of the fred? supporters here are concerned conservatives who haven’t yet made up their mind and desperately want this coward to get in the race and actually take some solid positions in a hostile debate format.

The problem with this is that this information has been available for years. Every time someone points out the facts, whether its a liberal newspaper, a conservative columnist with impeccable credentials or one of us here, its always attack the messenger instead of dealing with the facts. As you said earlier, one day all that matters is record, the next its all about rhetoric. Interestingly, this standard only applies to the one guy who isn’t a candidate.

If Fred gets the nomination and wins the race and then reverts to his RINO roots, we will hear shock and surprise from all the good conservatives at being betrayed.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Documents pre-dating his campaign unequivocally state that he was paid to lobby for a Pro-Choice group to ease restrictions on abortions – AND HE TOOK THE MONEY

That has been addressed in another post, and according to newsbusters, appears to be a fabrication.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM

[tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 12:12 PM]

yes, but do you know whether he puts on both socks before he puts on his shoes?

Seriously, regarding the first know, what we know is that people have said they have seen documents that show he was hired and did some work. Also, I could be wrong in this because I haven’t followed it to death, neither we, nor others, who say they know because they have seen, know that Fred! was paid.

If you are gong to know, at least know what you know.

Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM

You’ve already said the 2nd amendment is your issue and fred? is solid on that.

But the points Viguere made about freds? failure to fight the dems means that fred? will not fight for a Roberts type Justice if it means fighting the dems. He will look to a moderate Justice and that justice could weaken 2nd amendment rights. Rudy has promised to nominate Roberts type justices and Rudy has fought the opposition on many occasions. All the dems will have to do with freddie boy is get him into his appeasement mode and he will fold like a cheap suit. Mitt! fought the opposition in MA also, but I haven’t heard what his promise is on justices.

freds? record has to trump his rhetoric, at least until he grows a pair and announces.

And instead of dismissing the Viguere article, why don’t you go research his claims and see if he’s telling the truth? If he isn’t, you can be the one who shoots him down.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM

If Fred gets the nomination and wins the race and then reverts to his RINO roots, we will hear shock and surprise from all the good conservatives at being betrayed.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM

His record isn’t perfect, but I don’t think it comes anywhere near earning the RINO label. He was still in the conservative camp most of the time, unlike RINO Rudy or FlipFlop Mitt, who have spent their entire political careers as undeniable RINOs.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 12:34 PM

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM:

Fred wryly has chosen to remain silent when the Clinton machine has attempted to employee that Johnston tactic against him.

If it was just the Clinton machine that he had to worry about, I’d be inclined to agree. But with, for example, the Romney campaign piling on as well, he’s going to have to start acting like he’s actually campaigning for something pretty soon.

Lee on July 10, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Coming from a idiot individual who has never even remotely attempted to have a decent conversation regarding Fred this is pure hypocritical comedy gold…….

What conversation do you want to have? Fred! is a great Republican candidate. How do we know? Because he told you so. Fred! will lower taxes, defeat terrorism, shrink the government and get the crabgrass out of your lawn. How do we know? Because he told you so. Fred! can not only run rings around Hillary! in a debate, he can also levitate and divide by zero. How do we know? Because he told you so.

I get why people flock to Fred! The other candidates are so uniformly awful–except for, of course, Ron Paul, who isn’t awful but he is an anti-big government foreign policy heretic–you can envision the non-candidate Fred! however you wish.

You can bet on this, though. If any of the top four (including Fred!) are elected, the federal government will be bigger; it will interfere in more aspects of your life; and terrorism will still abide among us. I can guarantee it.

rho on July 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM

His record isn’t perfect, but I don’t think it comes anywhere near earning the RINO label. He was still in the conservative camp most of the time, unlike RINO Rudy or FlipFlop Mitt, who have spent their entire political careers as undeniable RINOs.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Well said.

DCJeff on July 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Yep. You’re dead on with that one too bro. I’m surprised that a conservative wouldn’t be as tough on a conservative as he would on a dem. It seems consistent with conservative principles to expect the highest possible core values be demanded and then concern oneself with the policies of the candidate. Any president will, once he is the most powerful person on the face of the earth, revert right back to his core values. If he’s a fake and a liar, being president wont change that.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:38 PM

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 11:45 AM

I’m not saying it won’t work, I’m just saying there is a reason why the last senator to make the leap to president was JFK. It’s either a gov or a veep.

Senators just get hammered way too much on a certain way they voted 20 years ago. Beyond that, the way any legislator votes on any given issue, is either going to make someone mad in your base, or give your opponent something to use against you.

reaganaut on July 10, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Well, I guess we can tell that the libs take Fred!’s chances of winning seriously. The more they do hit pieces on someone, the more likely I’ll be to vote for them… :)

Nineball on July 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM

His record isn’t perfect, but I don’t think it comes anywhere near earning the RINO label. He was still in the conservative camp most of the time, unlike RINO Rudy or FlipFlop Mitt, who have spent their entire political careers as undeniable RINOs.

Really? Aside from abortion where Romney has an identical position as Fred, what exactly has he flip flopped on? And tell me the high points of Fred’s elective life and executive experience that make you feel he is ready to assume the duties of the most important executive job in the world.

I don’t dislike Fred, I just haven’t seen anything in his record that would lead me to believe he is the savior he is being portrayed as.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Here’s the real exit question, AP: How low will the LAT sink when it comes to sourcing negative stories/ comments about Fred? And, yeah, the answer to that one really bothers me.

Yesterday, a small cadre from Hillary’s hit squad was given a national platform to smear the senator. No questions asked per the sources’ documentation (much less, motivation).

Today we get “conservative lawyer” Larry Klayman, who finds the thought of voting for Fred personally repugnant. Sounds like the guy must have some serious gravitas, right? Like he must be an influential conservative spokesman if his opinion is sought out for a major story in a major newspaper. Right? Any of y’all familiar with L. Klayman, Esquire? Well, I’m busy so I’m gonna pull a csdeven here. Do the research and decide for yourselves how relevant/influential/trustworthy a source the LAT has dug up. (No pun intended, I swear.)

grits on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM
If you are gong to know, at least know what you know.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-07/31063804.pdf

9/14/91 (16 year old document) states:

“the association had hired Fred Thompson, Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the Administration.”

I am a lawyer too. When I am “hired” that means I am paid. Unless of course, I’m doing it pro bono. Would you fee better if Fred lobbied for abortion rights for free — out of the pure goodness of his heart and belief in the cause?

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Lee on July 10, 2007 at 12:35 PM

I agree. When fred? brags about his poll numbers etc he reminds me of a AA ball player bragging that he has more home runs that a major leaguer.

The fred?heads have called him up to the majors, and it’s time for the coward to stay in the box and face some chin music.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:45 PM

rho on July 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM

You can bet on this, though. If any of the top four (including Fred!) are elected, the federal government will be bigger; it will interfere in more aspects of your life; and terrorism will still abide among us. I can guarantee it.

Because you say you can guarantee it, yea right thats about as stupid as it gets, next…..

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 12:46 PM

But the points Viguere made about freds? failure to fight the dems means that fred? will not fight for a Roberts type Justice if it means fighting the dems. He will look to a moderate Justice and that justice could weaken 2nd amendment rights.
csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM

You are insane. Fred worked with the White House to get Roberts (who the Dems would’ve loved to derail) nominated for crying out loud. Given their anti-2nd Amendment and squishy Roe v Wade posistions along with an East Coast RINO history I don’t trust Rudy or Mitt to uphold their promise regarding judges any further than I can throw Ted Kennedy.

That he couldn’t make charges stick in the Clinton fundraising scandal is disappointing, but not surprising considering what he was up against. To infer that this somehow suggests that someone with Federalist leanings would nominate a “moderate” judge is absurd and nonsensical… though absurd and nonsensical is pretty much your modus operandi, isn’t it?

Dammit, I should delete this now to avoid feeding the troll, but won’t.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 12:46 PM

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Not comparable. That is not a matter of policy or of record.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 12:47 PM

RINO Rudy or FlipFlop Mitt, who have spent their entire political careers as undeniable RINOs

Well, I’ve officially decided not to show any support for Fred. I was curious, I was waiting to see what would happen, but I can’t wait. The main reason is that I don’t want to be associated with Fred! supporters. Well, maybe not the main reason, but it did tip the scales.

Get a grip, people. Why are republicans so intent on trashing other republicans.

I’ve also convinced myself that anyone that has spent too much time on Capitol Hill is forever tainted and in no position to serve in the executive branch.

PS I just sent Mitt another $250, just for you Hollowpoint! Heheh-

reaganaut on July 10, 2007 at 12:50 PM

“…Thompson seems to have earned more forgiveness than McCain for breaking with conservative dogma, in part because his maverick streak was tempered by an easygoing manner and a willingness to stick with the GOP on most issues.”

Uh, is it me or doesn’t the highlighted portion admit that the premise of Thompson’s maverick status is at odds with reality.

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 12:50 PM

9/14/91 (16 year old document) states:

“the association had hired Fred Thompson, Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the Administration.”

I am a lawyer too. When I am “hired” that means I am paid…
tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM

And a client that keeps meeting minutes for 16 years should be able to provide billing records of you being paid. And as a filthy lawyer I’m guessing you might sometimes represent those with causes you personally disagree with perhaps?

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 12:50 PM

You are insane. Fred worked with the White House to get Roberts (who the Dems would’ve loved to derail) nominated for crying out loud.

Nice try. Remember, fred? as a lobbyist cannot get credit for the cause he lobbies for. Unless of course you would like to admit that fred? lobbied for a dictator AND a company that was denying US citizens their right to have an attorney represent them and there fore he believes in those causes.

Nuance your way out of that hypocricy.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM

And a client that keeps meeting minutes for 16 years should be able to provide billing records of you being paid.

Billing records disappear all the time. Ask Hillary.

See this is what I mean, no matter how much evidence is put forth, its slam the people who bring forth the evidence, ignore the evidence and trash the other candidates.

Mindboggling.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Uh, is it me or doesn’t the highlighted portion admit that the premise of Thompson’s maverick status is at odds with reality.
birkel on July 10, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Not really. He just points out that freddie boy is less of a maverick. But the damning stuff is his break on the major issues with the rep leadership, his lobbying, and his refusal to admit he flip-flopped on abortion.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Get a grip, people. Why are republicans so intent on trashing other republicans…

PS I just sent Mitt another $250, just for you Hollowpoint! Heheh-

reaganaut on July 10, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Uhh… have you not been paying attention to what’s been happening in and to the Republican party? The problem isn’t too much trashing, but too little thrashing and trashing.

And if you want to send your money to a multi-bazillionare slickster with positions that change with every election cycle and barely breaking single digit support after 6 months of campaigning and millions spent on TV ads already, be my guest. Just tell Flipper Mitt to watch his back should he come for my “assault weapons” in the very highly unlikely event he wins.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Mindboggling.
JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM

It is.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 1:00 PM

What conversation do you want to have? Fred! is a great Republican candidate. How do we know? Because he told you so. Fred! will lower taxes, defeat terrorism, shrink the government and get the crabgrass out of your lawn. How do we know? Because he told you so. Fred! can not only run rings around Hillary! in a debate, he can also levitate and divide by zero. How do we know? Because he told you so…

rho on July 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM

It’s disappointing, much of which is insincere rhetoric. I’m not a Ron Paul fan, but say for example Fred said, “Yes, we invited the attacks on 9.11…just by being free!” Fred-heads would go crazy and add another ! mark.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Because you say you can guarantee it, yea right thats about as stupid as it gets, next…..

Wanna bet on it? I’ll give you good odds, too.

Everybody here knows I’m right, too. Nobody cares, though, so long as there is a promise to “get tough” on terrorism. In theory most people here are conservative. In practice they are easily persuaded to forsake conservatism for big-government foreign policy. Hell, there’s undiluted man-love for Fred! simply because he sounds good.

Nobody has adequately explained why the same big-government that does so poorly with education and the environment and welfare will be better when it comes to foreign policy. It’s the same big government, guys–what makes you think they’ll turn into Svengali with the foreigners when they’re Mushmouth here at home?

rho on July 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Remind me never to hire you as a lawyer. It says Fred was hired to lobby a Labor/HHS bill, that included a parental notification amendment, not what Fred was hired to lobby about. It says he was to aid them in discussions with the current administration, not to advocate their position.

Both Fred and John Sununu claim Fred never lobbied on behalf of pro abortion issues, the document you provide neither confirms or denies this. As a lawyer you should have been the first to notice this, but somehow you failed to pick up on it, with skills like that like I said, please remind me to never hire you.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM

To all those posting on this topic not named csd*v*n:

Why does this troll (the one whose name I dare not mention) exist. Seriously. I’m having an existential crisis. I mean, I know evil exists in the world and I’ve seen some pretty foul things in my life, but why, oh why, does so much of what is awful and wrong with the world decide to post messages on topics for the sole purpose of douchebaggery?

Aren’t there fires to set? Or murder for hire schemes to hatch? Or something less horrible and perverse than inserting yourself where you’re not welcome? Is there nothing in your life that brings you greater joy than knowing you’re unliked and unlikable?

Seriously. Get. Professional. Help.

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Billing records disappear all the time. Ask Hillary.
JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Yeah, they’re really hard to find after they accidentally get thrown in the shredder then accidentally catch on fire in the incinerator.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 1:04 PM

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM

O/T….

It is usually wiser to preface your off topic remarks with “O/T”. Then when you are done with your O/T remarks, it’s best to get back on topic so as to avoid the appearance of trying to take the thread off topic.

On topic…

There are many disturbing events in freds? past that he must account for. His lobbying, his flip-flop on abortion, and his careful crafting of McCain/Feingold. If you are a fred? supporter, how do you defend him on those issues?

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Does anybody have an opinion on my post at 1:02pm?

Anybody?

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:11 PM

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM

It’s because he

(the one whose name I dare not mention)

like the liberal elitist media and the liberal/socialists democrats and the other assorted nutroots is so much smarter than the rest of us and he feels a profound and compelling need to save us from our own ignorance and stupidity.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Well, thank you doriangrey.

At least one person on this thread responded to my question. Much obliged.

Now if only a second person would respond.

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:15 PM

See this is what I mean, no matter how much evidence is put forth, its slam the people who bring forth the evidence, ignore the evidence and trash the other candidates.

There is no evidence, other than a supposed copy of some minutes, no billing records, not even a copy of a cancelled check. Also, the timing has been thoroughly debunked over at newsbusters.

Go check it out:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13983

In the July 7th version of the story Judith DeSarno, the woman making the accusation that Thompson worked for her pro-abortion organization in ’91, mentioned that she had talked with the Senator about his “cowboy death scene” in a movie he was in. She claimed she talked to him about this scene during one of the diners she claimed to have had with him where they discussed his lobbying efforts.

The problem with DeSarno’s original claim is, Thompson was never in any westerns in the 1990s. In fact, he appeared in a western only recently with the HBO movie “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee”, which was released this year — and in that he played president Ulysses S. Grant.

And:

But there are more troubles with this story than just one mysteriously disappearing quote. There is another timing issue with Thompson lobbying for this group in 1991. To become a lobbyist you have to register with the government and there is no Thompson registration during the time DeSarno and the Times claims he was working for them. Captain Ed at Captain’s Quarters reports on this L.A.Times slip up:

There’s more, lots more.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Hanlon’s Razor redefined:

Never attribute to honest disagreement that which can more easily be dismissed as malicious and evil.

rho on July 10, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4