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

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:11 PM

And (he whose name shall not be mentioned) is much smarter than us “empty-headed” “groupies” (his words), and will bless us with his utterances when we are just like him.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:18 PM

rho on July 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM

O/T….

Don’t take this as in insult, but you sound like the most rational RP supporter I have ever read.

I have a question for you…at what point in history did the federal government jump the shark on intruding into states rights? I know it has done it all along, but on which issue did it become the unstoppable juggernaut that it is today?

On topic….

Yeah, every single candidate from Rudy and Mitt! to the non-candidate fred?, will grow the federal government. I guess the best we can hope for is to select one of them that has a history of at least shrinking government in some areas.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Also from the same newsbusters link:

So, there is no registration for Thompson to be a lobbyist until the month AFTER the L.A.Times story claims he was lobbying the White House for this abortion group. And the registration that does exist for the next month registers him as a lobbyist to foreign nations, not domestic concerns.

This story is seeing bigger and bigger holes blasted through it every day by the blogosphere, and it’s getting easier and easier to believe Thompson’s claims that it is all a straight out lie as this story falls apart around the L.A.Times’ ears.

I know this means nothing to the Fred! haters out there, but this is falling apart rather quickly.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:20 PM

I’d be more bothered if the LAT liked him.

revolutionismyname on July 10, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Roger that.

Spurius Ligustinus on July 10, 2007 at 1:22 PM

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

Sure. If that a sincere question, I’ll bite. CS serves as a counter-weight to the Fred support for a specific reason – namely that said support is largely emotional in nature, (for some people).

And that’s understandable. Any investment in a candidate is personal and when $ is involved, if you question the candidate, it is often perceived as a personal statement of – you made bad judgment. And taken personally.

He’s only considered a troll by some, because people thing the arguments are circuitous. That is because there aren’t really any answers to the questions of who empty or full, or conservative or politically expedient Fred is until 1 commits to the race, 2 answers some questions.

CS keeps this place from being an echo chamber and asks important questions.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:23 PM

thing=think

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:24 PM

Good grief, is anyone concerned about the lies of the LAT, or are we going to continue talking about csdeven?

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM

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

Still waiting birkel. I have given you the opportunity to stay on topic but you seem intent on hijacking this thread unto an unrelated topic.

How do you defend fred? on those issues?

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Exit question: Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

Short term: no. And long term: no.

In the short term, who gives a rat’s ass. This is a desperation move. Nobody who actually goes to the trouble of voting in a Republican Primary could possibly care less who the LA Times tells us will hurt the Democrats the most.

As for the long term – even beyond 2008 – everything that harms the liberal media helps conservatism. The Republican Party moves in fits and starts. But the momentum of the liberal media goes in only one direction: in every election, they ratchet up the insane hyperbole another few notches, and they lose a few million more subscribers.

And the LA Times is going off the deep end with this.

logis on July 10, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Seriously. Get. Professional. Help. birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM

First they’ll have to send in a SWAT team special negotiator to try and talk him out of his mom’s basement. *megaphone voice* YOU IN THERE. PUT DOWN THE BAG OF CHEETOS AND MOVE SLOWLY UP THE STAIRS!

Mojave Mark on July 10, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Thanks jdawg.

Are there any other people who would like to respond.
And by that I mean people.

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:28 PM

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.

Lets put aside whether he lobbied for a pro-choice group or not. We really don’t know and to this point, all Fred has said is he doesn’t remember.

Thats not my real issue. How about adressing the fact that he ran as a pro-choice candidate and now says he is staunchly pro-life. Applying the Romney criteria, this makes him a flip flopper. Right?

How about the fact that he was an architect of one of the least conservative laws passed in history, McCain/Feingold?

How about he hasn’t lived in TN in years, doesn’t even own a home there. He lives in McLean, VA and is a true beltway player. How does this square with his down home campaign?

Does his lack of executive experience concern you?

Rudy got slammed for his lack of social values. Fred divorced his with of 20+ years, then in his own words “chased women” and married one half his age. Does this bother anyone or only when Rudy does it?

Most curiously, why won’t Fred get in the race? He doesn’t need to do any more exploring, thats smoke. Is he afraid to get in and debate? Is he afraid to answer tough questions and content to just get tongue baths from people who have no idea about his record? This is the hard charging next leader of the free world?

As you said, there’s lots more.

Those are some of the things that Fred needs to answer for me. I don’t get why none of this stuff bothers Fredheads.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Good grief, is anyone concerned about the lies of the LAT, or are we going to continue talking about csdeven?
jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM

As far as the LAT is manufacturing the lies, I cannot tell. They surely are culpable to a point, but for me, it seems the lies genesis begins with the Clinton’s connections with the group making the statements.

I do believe that at the very, very, best, the LAT is too eager to report anything that skewers a conservative. They HOPE and PRAY the reports are true and because of their liberal bent, they assume that the story MUST be true.

If they were ever a reason to have oversight on the free press, this kind of crap is the reason why.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:23 PM

CS keeps this place from being an echo chamber and asks important questions.

Ok time for you to put the crack pipe down. cs has never asked a single important or civil question. Lets take you as a object to compare cs with. You don’t engage in hysterical ad homenim attacks on Fred or those supporting him. You don’t ask disingenuous intellectually dishonest questions. You do engage in civil discourse, you ask genuinely valid questions.

No if anyone here is doing an effective job at keeping this place from being an echo chamber it would be you, but without question it is not cs.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 1:33 PM

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Still lapping up the crap I leave in the hall I see. You ready for a breath mint yet?

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 1:38 PM

CS keeps this place from being an echo chamber and asks important questions.

…Over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Frankly, your method of avoiding an “echo chamber” is pretty much the opposite of the way any normal person would go about that task.

More to the point, CS’s level of stamina couldn’t possibly be matched by any non-psychotic person. But a parrot could match his insight. Of course all of his rhetorical “questions” were all addressed a very, very long time ago.

Just because you didn’t LIKE any of the answers doesn’t mean that they aren’t as “important” as your feelings on the matter; let alone that they don’t exist.

logis on July 10, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Ok time for you to put the crack pipe down. cs has never asked a single important or civil question.

That’s not fair, nor it is fair to slander him as non-conservative. And for the record I am not a drug user. Now, back to the issues at hand.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Just because you didn’t LIKE any of the answers doesn’t mean that they aren’t as “important” as your feelings on the matter; let alone that they don’t exist.

logis on July 10, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Logis this is not the first time that you have told me what I “think” or what I “like”. Frankly I’m sick of it. Your comprehension of what I am saying and what I think is apparently lacking so if you would please, in the future, refrain from projecting on to me what you think I think, I would appreciate it.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:43 PM

As far as the LAT is manufacturing the lies, I cannot tell.

Did you read the post at newsbusters? Looks like a pack of lies to me….

Now, back to the issues at hand.

Please!!!

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Today we get “conservative lawyer” Larry Klayman, who finds the thought of voting for Fred personally repugnant…. Right? Any of y’all familiar with L. Klayman, Esquire?

grits on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM

I never actually heard of the guy myself. But if I had to hazard a guess as to who he might be…

logis on July 10, 2007 at 1:45 PM

csdeven:

I do believe that at the very, very, best, the LAT is too eager to report anything that skewers a conservative. They HOPE and PRAY the reports are true and because of their liberal bent, they assume that the story MUST be true.

Agreed. And in this case, they thought they could get away with it. They thought wrong.

If they were ever a reason to have oversight on the free press, this kind of crap is the reason why.

I think that’s why most papers have an ombudsman. Nevertheless, the best oversight is an informed and knowledgeable public.

BTW, thanks for the reasonable response.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:48 PM

JackStraw,

Every candidate has to answer all sorts of questions. Fred naturally has his fair share. As do Mitt, Rudy, Obama, Hillary, Algore and any other credible person.

I await answers from them all and will evaluate what may come. Surely Hillary, Obama and Algore have the furthest to go to reach me (they’d have to renounce socialism and commit seppuku for starters) but anything is possible.

Fred and Rudy have much less to prove to me.

(Ron Paul would have to cut out his own beating heart and take a bite. Then perform his own lobotomy, castrate himself and renounce gold as an ignorant plan to retard our economy. By last Monday.)

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:48 PM

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:48 PM

(Ron Paul would have to cut out his own beating heart and take a bite. Then perform his own lobotomy, castrate himself and renounce gold as an ignorant plan to retard our economy. By last Monday.)

Gee, why don’t you let us know how you ~really~ feel about Ron Paul? ;-}

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Did you read the post at newsbusters? Looks like a pack of lies to me….
jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 1:44 PM

It may very well be, but there are just reporting the story. There is no proof that they made it up.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 1:56 PM

Every candidate has to answer all sorts of questions. Fred naturally has his fair share. As do Mitt, Rudy, Obama, Hillary, Algore and any other credible person.

Well not here they don’t. Thats my problem with Fred. And its pretty clear to me, thats why he hasn’t gotten in the race yet, so he doesn’t have to answer hard questions and can have his advisors “frame” him.

It’s a shrewd political strategy, similar to the Dem highest poller, Gore. But I don’t want a shrewd politician, I want the best candidate.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 1:57 PM

If this is all they got, then I’m feeling even better about a Fred run. There’s still plenty of time until the primaries and anything could happen but…

FireDrake on July 10, 2007 at 2:00 PM

There is no proof that they made it up.

If they didn’t make it up, then it’s certainly the shoddiest reporting imaginable. “The facts don’t fit, so, we’ll just stretch thing to fit the template.” And the sheeple will never know the difference…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Thats not my real issue. How about adressing the fact that he ran as a pro-choice candidate and now says he is staunchly pro-life. Applying the Romney criteria, this makes him a flip flopper. Right?

Federalist not pro-choice huge difference, a 100 percent pro-life voting record in the senate should have been what tipped you off.

How about the fact that he was an architect of one of the least conservative laws passed in history, McCain/Feingold?

I suggest that you read what he said at the time regarding his support for that bill.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030106002415/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/speeches/fs032701.html

How about he hasn’t lived in TN in years, doesn’t even own a home there. He lives in McLean, VA and is a true beltway player. How does this square with his down home campaign?

Duh………..you have got to be kidding……That doesn’t even deserve this much of a response.

Does his lack of executive experience concern you?

No, I actually think it may be to his benefit, GW had executive experience and a M>B>A from Harvard, look what good it did him, Clinton had executive experience and look what he did.

Rudy got slammed for his lack of social values. Fred divorced his with of 20+ years, then in his own words “chased women” and married one half his age. Does this bother anyone or only when Rudy does it?

Rudy isn’t in trouble for getting divorced, he is catching flack for changing wives like King Henry the IV…

Most curiously, why won’t Fred get in the race?

Oh he is most definitely in the race, in fact he is leading the race. He just isn’t doing it the way you think he should and considering that he is the frontrunner it seems that it is Fred who knows how to campaign for POTUS not you.

Those are some of the things that Fred needs to answer for me. I don’t get why none of this stuff bothers Fredheads.

No really Fred doesn’t need to answer any of those questions to you, because your mind is already made up. Fred might as well answer Hillary’s challenge to convince her to vote for him, the result would be the same either way, neither of you will vote for him under any circumstances so what would be the point?

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM

JackStraw,

There may be some overlap between “shrewd politician” and “best candidate” so I hope you’re not using those terms in some mutually exclusive manner. (I can’t tell if you mean that to be the case from your post so I’m not implying that you mean to do so.)

I doubt I’ll be thrilled with my choices 16 months from now so all I’m looking for is good enough. Perfect is not something available and I’m not willing to let an imperfect Republican be the ally of the bad — Democrat.

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Yeah, every single candidate from Rudy and Mitt! to the non-candidate fred?, will grow the federal government.

I don’t know enough about Romney to judge him in this respect, but where is the evidence for your proposition that Rudy will grow the federal government (besides his pledge to increase the size of the military)? Do you count all of his “stat” programs as an increase in the size of government?

Big S on July 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM

…there aren’t really any answers to the questions of who empty or full, or conservative or politically expedient Fred is until 1 commits to the race, 2 answers some questions.

…Frankly I’m sick of it. Your comprehension of what I am saying and what I think is apparently lacking so if you would please, in the future, refrain from projecting on to me what you think I think, I would appreciate it.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:43 PM

You said that that there are no answers to questions about Fred Thompson; I said that all of CS’s questions have been answered ad naseum quite some time ago.

And now your response to that is to say that my opinion must be the result of a mental disorder.

I address ONLY the things that you say. Feel perfectly free to accuse me of lying about or failing to “comprehend” anything else that you want…

But please trust me when I tell you that I could not possibly care less what’s going on inside your head or how you feel about anything.

logis on July 10, 2007 at 2:03 PM

From: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010467.php

I’d be interested to know when he started lobbying for Arent Fox — with an exact date. The information on Thompson’s association with Arent Fox says that they hired Thompson specifically for lobbying on behalf of foreign customers, which would require the FARA registration with an exact date that such lobbying began. This implies that Thompson wouldn’t have been available to the NFPRHA in Septemer 1991, and make the document on which the Times based its entire story somewhat suspect.

Somewhat…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 2:03 PM

And thanks to all the people who answered my query above.
And by that I mean people.

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 2:04 PM

[tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM]

Thank you, I stand corrected on the mm documentation since I hadn’t heard they had since been published. (I’ll also stand corrected on the point I forgot that you lawyer folk are bright enough to get the money upfront, which is a much better position of “hired” than mine. I’m envious!!!) But there is still the documentation he was hired. I don’t know about you, but I have been to many a client meeting wherein people have been hired and then not. It often shows up in the minutes but does not occur. I don’t expect the actual billing records to still exist but I would expect the contract to — businesses don’t microfilm billing records but they do contracts. I want to see a signed contract.

[JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM]

Yes, they sometimes disappear just long enough to outlast some staute of limitation and then show up on the dining room table. So when I *slam* evidence, it’s because it is insufficent in my eyes, not because of some JackStrawman “no matter how much is produced”. Seems you are easily mindboggled. Grow up and enter the real world where exaggeration, deception, lying, spin, fraud, *fake but accurate* are common occurances and excuse me for being sceptical when an untrustworthy newpaper that barely hides it’s agendas compiles reports in which textual evidence mysteriously disappears without comment because it appears it is false.

Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 2:05 PM

But there is still the documentation he was hired.

See my earlier post. Looks like Fred! couldn’t have been hired when the LAT claims, for various reasons. I’ve also posted links to this as well.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 2:08 PM

I’ll bite on some of the Fred! questions, mainly cause I’m in his camp because I find the rest of the front runners…uninspiring:

he ran as a pro-choice candidate and now says he is staunchly pro-life. Applying the Romney criteria, this makes him a flip flopper. Right?

Accepting your premise, the answer to your question is “yes”. So? Politicians do this. National political leaders making pro-life noises are a dime a dozen and worth about that much too. What counts is who he’ll nominate to the bench. Fred! fought for Roberts. Works for me. In a field in which the other front runners are either out and out pro-choice (Rudy) or have flopped themselves (Romney) who really cares?

How about the fact that he was an architect of one of the least conservative laws passed in history, McCain/Feingold?

I understand that he’s walked back his support for that monstrosity. This is a black mark, no doubt, but I don’t expect 100% agreement from candidates I support. If this is your hobby horse issue, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

How about he hasn’t lived in TN in years, doesn’t even own a home there. He lives in McLean, VA and is a true beltway player. How does this square with his down home campaign?

Wait. Are you telling me politicians can be phony on some aspects of their public persona? Get out! Big deal.

Does his lack of executive experience concern you?

Yes. But Bush was Governor in a state where the governor doesn’t have a lot of power and he’s done OK. I’m more concerned with ideology right now and effectiveness in communication.

Rudy got slammed for his lack of social values. Fred divorced his with of 20+ years, then in his own words “chased women” and married one half his age. Does this bother anyone or only when Rudy does it?

I don’t know who’s slamming Rudy over his marital life, but its not this Fred! supporter. Those who are should recall that Reagan was divorced too. And Fred’s ex-wife is supportive of him today. Fred dated around when he was single? Good for him. That makes me like him even more.

I don’t expect perfection, and I’m not slamming any of the other guys in the race. I just think its the right time and right place for Fred. The last four years have demonstrated we desperately need a man who can articulate and convince folks on the big issues of our day from a consevative perspective. I think Fred’s our best bet there.

Fred on July 10, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:40 PM

That’s not fair, nor it is fair to slander him as non-conservative. And for the record I am not a drug user. Now, back to the issues at hand.

Yes it is…..I am treating him exactly the same way he treats Fred, which is exactly fair.

For the record I wasn’t implying that you were. The phrase is a very politically incorrect colloquialism for “what you just said is seriously devoid of rational or logical thought”.

As I implied in the afore mentioned post it is possible to engage with you in a civil dialog regarding the merits or defects of Fred as a candidate, sometimes reading the entire context of what is said is more important than picking out single sentences.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 2:12 PM

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=7081

UPDATE: It appears that Fred Thompson actually joined Arent Fox as of April 1991. An April 17, 1991 Washington Post story, accessed via Nexis, begins:

Fred Thompson, the former minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, who in recent years has become a familiar face on the big screen in some blockbuster movies, is making a more permanent connection here. The Tennessee lawyer, who headed his own firm in Nashville and came here on an infrequent basis, has joined Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, the Washington firm with which his close friend John Culver, the former senator, is also affiliated.

So, this means that Thompson was at the firm in Sept. 1991 and could have theoretically lobbyied for the abortion rights group during the time period mentioned in the LA Times story. This still doesn’t explain why the LA Times removed the cowboy movie reference

So Fred! WAS at Arent in Sept 1991, but appears that he was not registered as a lobbyist until October of that year. I’m sure there’s more to this.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 2:12 PM

birkel-

Nah, I haven’t decided yet who I feel is the best candidate but Fred is losing traction with me ever day he pulls this shadow candidacy crap. It’s time for him to put up or shut up.

doriangrey-

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth or assuming you know how I will vote? It’s not my fault that many people are either ignorant of Thompson’s record or willing to give him a pass on the very issues they are slamming other people for?

Were you here in RI last year when Fred came to campaign and raise money for Lincoln Frigging Chaffee against a conservative primary challenger? Yea, that Lincoln Frigging Chaffee.

Where you here when he said:

“There are a lot of reasons I support Linc. We agree on most issues, disagree on some. Obviously, keeping control of the Senate is very important. I don’t like the sound of ‘Chairman Kennedy.’ “

Really? He agreed with the most liberal republican senator on most issues? I was here, I heard and saw it.

Yea, Thompson has a long way to go to overcome his past with me. But maybe, just maybe, thats because I know the facts and am not making excuses for everything Fred has done.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:14 PM

csdeven = Richard Viguerie
:^)

lan astaslem on July 10, 2007 at 2:16 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth or assuming you know how I will vote?

I’m not, you did it yourself. I don’t have to assume anything about how you will vote you have already made it 100% clear.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Dusty

That was real cute with the strawman thing. Did you think that up all by yourself? Surely not, I’ve only seen it about 30 times now. Insulting me doesn’t change the facts.

When Fred actually denies this, not a weasily “I have no recollection” crap, then let me know. Until then, save the grow up crap. The simple fact is that Mitt has been slammed as a flip flopper for the same issue Thompson is flip flopping on. Rudy has been slammed for the same divorce issues Fred is being admired as a man’s man for. And Fred continues to run his campaign in the shadows, safe from real scrutiny and when he does get attacked like every other candidate, his shock troops here and elsewhere spring to his defense with “nuanced” rebuttals.

I’m not the one being a hypocrite here or pretending the facts aren’t what they are.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:26 PM

I’m not, you did it yourself. I don’t have to assume anything about how you will vote you have already made it 100% clear.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Which just goes to prove the value of debating with you. You have no idea who I am going to vote for because I don’t have any idea yet who I’m going to vote for.

But thanks for clearing up your position.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Really? He agreed with the most liberal republican senator on most issues? I was here, I heard and saw it.

Yea, Thompson has a long way to go to overcome his past with me. But maybe, just maybe, thats because I know the facts and am not making excuses for everything Fred has done.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Or maybe because you’ve already implied that your nose is firmly wedged between the cheeks of a certain RINO.

What did you expect him to say- “I disagree with this SOB RINO on damn near everything, but vote for him anyways so we don’t lose the Senate”?

You’re starting to sound desperate- but yeah, you just know oh-so-much more than the rest of us, so I guess it’s OK.

But please, feel free to let us know why your preferred gun-grabber would be a better, more conservative candidate.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 2:32 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Which just goes to prove the value of debating with you. You have no idea who I am going to vote for because I don’t have any idea yet who I’m going to vote for.

But thanks for clearing up your my position.

You have never even tried debating anything with me so how would you know. Furthermore who you will vote for never has been the question, what you have made obvious to anyone with an IQ above 2 is who you will not want to vote for.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 2:37 PM

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

Yea, ok. You are the one making veiled threats to shoot a prospective Presidential candidate and I’m the one who is desperate. Ha.

Dude, you are a one issue voter as you demostrate over and over and over. We get it. You love your guns. You and the NRA are never going to convince me that regulating guns at least to the extent we do cars is a bad idea.

If the 1st Amendment goes away, the 2nd is already gone. You need to come to grips with that. Your boy Fred is the one who made the assualt on the 1st, he and McCain and that oh so conservative Russ Feingold. That’s your idea of a conservative candidate? I don’t think I’ll be taking my cues on conservatism from you.

Of the declared candidate, Romney is my favorite so far. He’s a brilliant executive, he has the right positions on illegal immigration and fighting terrorism, he’s a very good debater and communicatorwhich will actually matter in the election and beyond and while he did support the assault weapons ban, he also loosened gun laws in MA. Possibly most important, he has proven he can win and lead in the most liberal state in the union.

Rudy I think is an effective manager and did a very impressive job turning around NYC which is probably harder than running the majority of states. He is not so great on immigration but pretty good on terror. But he is peaking and starting to lose his luster.

McCain, no chance.

Nobody else has risen to the level of serious consideration for me for various reasons but mostly because none of them can win.

Now maybe when Fred enters the race he will blow me away but so far he isn’t a candidate and he hasn’t impressed me.

Interestingly enough, I haven’t voted yet.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:50 PM

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Yeah. As I posted earlier, I totally agree that they are pretty much hack artists when it comes to conservatives.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 2:52 PM

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

You can say the same thing about big-government getting a pass from conservatives when it comes to police and prosecutors. However, the fact remains that inept or not, foreign policy is a basic function, along with military defense, of any national government. That the State Dept. as well as bureaucratic and political functionaries don’t do the job particularly well doesn’t mean that it isn’t their job.

rokemronnie on July 10, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Viguerie = Sun Myung Moon’s 1970s fundraiser. Talk about a past. Hey Viguerie! Mail this.

saved on July 10, 2007 at 2:56 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Hey dude!? You trying to move in on my 8itch!? doriengrey is MY 8itch! I’ve spent all this time putting my vibes out there forcing him to act like a fool and fixate on everything I write.

Get your own 8itch!

hahaha

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM

I don’t know enough about Romney to judge him in this respect, but where is the evidence for your proposition that Rudy will grow the federal government (besides his pledge to increase the size of the military)? Do you count all of his “stat” programs as an increase in the size of government?

Big S on July 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Well, now that you mention it, all the issues I can recall Rudy talk about are actually the issues that the federal government has jurisdiction over. Immigration. The war in Iraq. Protecting the homeland. Thanks for pointing that out. My bad. I’ll have to look a little closer at Rudy from now on.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 3:09 PM

As a senator, he had a maverick streak that sometimes infuriated activists and colleagues.

This got my attention, especially on the day Mr. McCain’s stars departed, one way or another. I knew instinctively that the LAT was looking out for us. We’re forever in debt to them. Keep at it boys and girls. You predicted that Mr. Davis wouldn’t be recalled in CA, and many other earthshattering items.

Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

Yep. Yawn. Made me happy a little for my buddy csdeven.

birkel on July 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM

birkel, dude or dudette, don’t take this too seriously, lest you’ll need “professional help” after all this. So long as HA is fine with it, you can just select the ‘overlook/ignore’ on your eyes when the csdeven-fever comes on. Our buddy will be either a genius or he’ll vote for Fred, or whoever will be the nominee. He won’t vote for Hillary or Obama, almost certain of that. Heck, if I’d be Fred, I’d hire him to do my vetting.

Entelechy on July 10, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Jeez d00d! Don’t you have a job? Or are you getting paid by the post? There are grownups talking here. Why don’t you go out and play? You know who I’m talking to.

MarkM on July 10, 2007 at 3:26 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Gone completely over to the nutroots I see…..

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 3:35 PM

It is very nice of the LAT to help us pick a candidate, but unlike the dumb a*s liberal drones that swill from their sewer, we’ll be just fine.
Thank you very much!

TheSitRep on July 10, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Exit question: Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

Naah, you need to steal Ace’s exit question… (I’ll paraphrase)
doe

Exit question: Anyone believe the LAT will continue this “RINO” pitch past the primaries; or will Fred suddenly and inexplicably transform into a “right-wing idealogue” in the Editorials and News Stories?

gekkobear on July 10, 2007 at 3:46 PM

gekkobear on July 10, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Ace has a way of really getting to the bottom of this sometimes….

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 3:49 PM

I’ve been for Rudy since the 2004 RNC speech.

Haven’t seen enough from Fred! to change my mind. It would help if he actually showed up at a debate.

TallDave on July 10, 2007 at 3:49 PM

Opp’s this=things….

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Of the declared candidate, Romney is my favorite so far. He’s a brilliant executive, he has the right positions on illegal immigration and fighting terrorism, he’s a very good debater and communicatorwhich will actually matter in the election and beyond and while he did support the assault weapons ban, he also loosened gun laws in MA. Possibly most important, he has proven he can win and lead in the most liberal state in the union.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Yeah dude, we know- you’re a Flipper Mitt fan, and I doubt anything Fred says or does from this point on will change that. I’m not a one-issue candidate anymore than those who were upset about the shamnesty bill, but it’s an especially important issue to me and most conservatives (at least the real ones who don’t live near the east or west coasts) as well.

Let’s break it down, shall we?

Yes, Romney has executive experience in business and one term as governor… in MA. Fred doesn’t, and that’s a legitimate point. However, Romney still lost his Senate race in that same state, just as he’d lose to Hillary in the unlikely chance he were nominated.

Illegal immigration and war on terror- no real difference between what he and the other front-runners (aside from McCain) have said. I appreciate that Fred has put his thoughts to paper.

“while he did support the assault weapons ban, he also loosened gun laws in MA.”

BS. He tightened gun control laws in MA, boasting of how he was standing up to the NRA. He’s a gun grabber, and lied about being a gun owner and “lifelong hunter” to try and cover that fact up. That the new gun control law he actively supported wasn’t as stringent as some Dems would’ve liked doesn’t count as loosening gun laws.

McCain-Feingold- yeah duder, we know; it only gets brought up 37 times every time Fred’s name is mentioned. He’s since suggested that the most onerous free speech provisions be turned back, and praised the recent Supreme Court decision that loosened it. McCain criticized the decision. We don’t know how Mitt or Rudy would’ve voted because they weren’t there. It was a mistake, but not an unforgivable one; political contributions were a hot topic at that time.

Mitt- won in one of the most liberal states in the nation… and we’re supposed to believe he’s anything approximating a conservative? Was he a conservative just pretending to be a RINO, or a RINO now pretending to be a conservative? Given his stance on Big Government health care, education and gun control, the latter seems most likely.

As far as your ridiculous guns = cars analogy, I forgot which amendment of the Bill of Rights protects the right to keep and drive cars. Perhaps you can look that up for me.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 3:52 PM

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.”

A base canard, at least in my case. I was shocked when I saw the guy who had already become my favorite Senator (from watching him on the Senate Floor and in Senate investigative committees, etc.) in a movie next to Bruce Willis. I doubt that I have seen five minutes, total, of Law and Order. Don’t watch many broadcast shows at all (24, Heroes, Las Vegas are about it).

I like the guy because I liked most of what he did in the Senate. I’d love to have Duncan Hunter as President, but FDT is lots more likely to be able to get the job, and has precisely the talents and attitudes that we need in the White House these days.

LegendHasIt on July 10, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Our buddy will be either a genius or he’ll vote for Fred, or whoever will be the nominee. He won’t vote for Hillary or Obama, almost certain of that. Heck, if I’d be Fred, I’d hire him to do my vetting.

Entelechy on July 10, 2007 at 3:23 PM


You’re awesome!

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 3:58 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.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Your ability to weasle out of the clear meaning of the document is very … Clintonian. What does hired to aid with discussions with the Administration mean to you? Not lobbying???

Also, the eye witness in the LAT article that was purportedly shot down by a non-existent Cowboy scene…. what about “Keep the Change” which was Released in 1992. It was a Western with William Peresen and Jack Palance wherein Fred played a character named Otis. I am not sure that Otis was killed in either the final version or in any shot version (I have not seen it). However, I do know that films are usually release about a year after they are shot, and if this was released in 1992, this Western was probably shot in 1991 and was presumably very fresh in Fred’s mind when he was lobbying for abortion rights.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104601/

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 3:58 PM

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Nice little 8itch. Do as you’re told.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 3:59 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Ya know, I wouldn’t have put the time into this, but you made a nice argument to counter the blind faith in fred? and the blind rage at anything a liberal paper prints.

See people, this is the reason you do your own research.

Nice catch, I wonder if it will pan out? It surely bears keeping an eye on. At least until until fred? actually grows a pair of stones and gets into the fray.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 4:07 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Your ability to weasle out of the clear meaning of the document is very … Clintonian. What does hired to aid with discussions with the Administration mean to you? Not lobbying???

Could mean a lot of things, you as a lawyer should know that. It could mean their hired him to present a hostile internal review of their intended presentation to the administration.

Released on june 9 1992 means it probably wasn’t shot yet, sorry I have friends who act in westerns, it only takes a month or two to shoot a western.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 4:14 PM

BS. He tightened gun control laws in MA, boasting of how he was standing up to the NRA

Really? Who to believe, you or Sen Larry Craig, board member and life member of the NRA.

“How do I know Romney understands these things? Because I’ve studied his record – and it’s impressive. As governor, he took real, meaningful steps to affirm our right to bear arms.

“Romney has shown that he is willing to confront the jumble of state gun laws in Boston – and if he can do that with an 85 percent Democratic legislature in one of the most liberal states in the country, think what he could do in Washington with a more supportive base in Congress.

“In 2004, Romney signed a sweeping reform of Massachusetts’ gun laws that made the state’s gun laws far less onerous for sportsmen.”

“Fact is, if Romney just talked about his support for the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners, that would be welcome. But Romney has been doing more than talking – he has been taking action for several years, and his approach would be a welcome addition to the gun debates in Washington, D.C.”

Given his stance on Big Government health care,

His stance on health care. You mean the one he wrote in conjunction with the Heritage Foundation, that stance?

In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney’s plan as one of the most promising strategies out there. I know, because I’ve been part of the Heritage Foundation team advising the governor and his staff on the design, which builds on some of my work with officials in other states.

Perhaps you should read the plan and find out why the Heritage Foundation says it will actually save money over the current mess and at the same time offer universal health care.

Education? I can’t understand what your beef with Romney would be on education.

Governor Romney: “At some point, I think America — and, importantly, the minority communities — are going to say, ‘it’s time to split with our friends, the unions and the Democratic Party, and put our kids first here.’ Unequal educational opportunity is the civil rights issue of our time.”
(Tulsa World, March 7, 2006)

Governor Romney: “We cannot continue to have an excellence gap with the rest of the world and intend to remain the economic superpower and military superpower of the planet. That’s just not going to happen,” Romney said. “We’re in a position where unless we take action, we’ll end up being the France of the 21st century: a lot of talk, but not a lot of strength behind it in terms of economic capability.”
(AP, November 16, 2005)

Sound pretty conservative to me.

As far as your ridiculous guns = cars analogy, I forgot which amendment of the Bill of Rights protects the right to keep and drive cars. Perhaps you can look that up for me.

I’m sorry, did you think I said that cars were guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? I didn’t any more than I think you are implying that the Bill of Rights guarantees you an assault rifle. It doesn’t.

What I said was I support licensing and registration of guns that is at least as stringent as we impose on cars. That’s a radical concept to you, why? A board member of the NRA thinks Romney is “impressive” on gun rights. Works for me.

You see a Republican winning state wide office in the most liberal state in the union and assume he must be a liberal. I have seen him upclose and personal and I know his record. He isn’t. And as I’ve been told repeatedly on this and other threads, politiicians are allowed to say anything to get elected, its their record in office that matters.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 4:20 PM

[JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 2:26 PM]

Your point that I was speaking to, was your presenting argument that folks, me included, were unconvincible because we wanted something more substantial and definitive, like a contract or billing records. Your Hillary snark about not keeping records, was not only contrafactual to your slam about evidence but is, like the LAT article, the acme of providing evidence selectively. And you conclude that you are mindboggled!? Well, no kidding.

I wasn’t insulting you, Jack, I was pointing out a character trait. I don’t abide making it incumbent on the accused to disprove an every assertion made by their opponents just because they made it with a bunch of flimsy thrown together *facts* particularly when the ‘rings true’ backup starts disapppearing. That he doesn’t respond to your satisfaction isn’t a “fact” that it’s true. Also, I don’t accept other people’s opinions or judgments of whose a RINO, the main subject of AP’s post here, as “evidence” that that person is a RINO, especially when the person isn’t named, unless, of course “a senate aide” is his name and the LAT just forgot to capitalize and punctuate properly.

But, I will agree the underemphasized point of your litany of opinions and judgment comparisons that have a few facts stuffed in there. Conservative, moderate, liberal, RINO are not different lines. They are points and/or segments on the same line, a line that also includes the other party. Lastly, candidates do have the ability to move along the line over time.

Positions, events, circumstances, consistency and other things all have a role in where people perceive the candidate to be on the line. That one person judges, for example, Rudy’s divorces to be different than Thompson’s divorce in relation to ‘family values’, doesn’t make them a hypocrite That reason, among the above reasons, but primarily because you cubbyholed me rather than argue on specifics, is why I didn’t spare you the “grow up” crap.

Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 4:27 PM

The only thing that is really wrong with Mitt is Hugh Hewitt. That guy is really annoying.

Fred on July 10, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Released on june 9 1992 means it probably wasn’t shot yet, sorry I have friends who act in westerns, it only takes a month or two to shoot a western.

And it was made for TV, at that.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Released on june 9 1992 means it probably wasn’t shot yet, sorry I have friends who act in westerns, it only takes a month or two to shoot a western.
doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 4:14 PM

I am sorry but that is just a lame justification and an unjustified rejection of the evidence. It may only take two months to shoot a Western, but then you have to edit it, score it and find someone to distribute it. Fred’s Western, released in 1992 was apparently not very good. The producers failed to find a theatrical distributor and wound up releasing it on USA Network. I have no idea how long this film’s post-production took and how long they shopped it around before setteling on USA Network, but given my understanding of how a film is made (hint, before I was a lawyer, I was a film maker) the timing is pretty perfect how it fits with this story. While lobbying for abortion rights, Fred acts out a scene from the Western, THAT HE JUST FINISHED SHOOTING. That is a far more probable explaination of the evidence than any other that I have seen.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 4:40 PM

No billing records, no cancelled checks, bad timing, known radical Democrat operatives putting this out.

Smells like a hit piece to me.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 4:42 PM

That reason, among the above reasons, but primarily because you cubbyholed me rather than argue on specifics, is why I didn’t spare you the “grow up” crap.

Specifics? You’ve got to be kidding me. Fred supporters don’t argue specifics. That’s been my single biggest beef with people on this issue. He is the Messiah of the right. He don’t need no stinkin specifics.

There are videos of him all over the place in his senate run saying that abortion is a woman’s choice and the government should stay out of it. That is a position that would get every other Republican branded a pro-choice RINO or a flip flopper and you and everyone else knows it. But Fred? No, he’s nuanced. That’s absurd.

He is an almost invisible legislative record. I had someone here the other night say I was lying and posted a list of about 8 of the most obscure technical amendments as an indication of his legislative prowess. Bull. The single most noteworthy thing he did in the Senate was be one of the architects of McCain/Feingold. He’s now trying to weasel out of it by saying it didn’t do what they thought it would. That’s even more absurd.

Of course politicians are allowed to change their positions. ALL of them, not just Fred. Otherwise attempting to influence them as was done on illegal immigration would have been a moot exercise.

I put out specific after specific and compare them to the positions of other Republicans in the race who are getting called RINO’s or flip floppers and I get called names and fred gets excuses. All of this would be a lot more clear if Fred would just get in the race and answer the same questions every other candidate has to.

Agreed?

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 4:43 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 4:20 PM

I think you are implying that the Bill of Rights guarantees you an assault rifle. It doesn’t.

Hmmm, the courts are a little obtuse on that one.

Based on a re-examination of the government’s brief in Miller and the language just quoted, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Miller can at least as easily be read to stand for the opposite conclusion: that if a weapon were of the sort that could be used by the military, there would be an individual right to possess that weapon. Thus, a sawed-off shotgun, because it is not a military weapon, falls outside the Second Amendment — but a more “military” weapon would not.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, you can legally own a fully automatic assault weapon, there just are certain restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The registration process, purchases, taxes and transfers

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain permission the ATF, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.

NFA items may also be transferred to corporations (or other legal entities such as a trust). When the paperwork to request transfer of an NFA item is initiated by an officer of a corporation, a signature from local law enforcement is not required, and fingerprint cards and photographs do not need to be submitted with the transfer request. Therefore, an individual who lives in a location where the chief law enforcement officer will not sign a transfer form can still own an NFA item if he/she owns a corporation.
US National Firearms Act Stamp, affixed to transfer forms to indicate tax paid.
US National Firearms Act Stamp, affixed to transfer forms to indicate tax paid.

The tax for privately manufacturing any NFA firearm (other than machineguns, which are generally illegal to manufacture) is $200. Transferring requires a $200 tax for all NFA firearms except AOWs, for which the transfer tax is $5 (in addition to the $200 manufacturing tax). Dealers who pay a special yearly occupational tax are exempt from these taxes for transfers to or from other special occupational taxpayers (SOTs). The registration or transfer process takes approximately 4-6 months to complete. Additionally, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm’s registered owner is present.

The market for NFA items

Importation of NFA weapons was banned by the 1968 Gun Control Act which implemented a “sporting” clause. Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use. The manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. All machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment are still legal for possession by and transfer among civilians where permitted by state law. The static and relatively small number of transferable automatic firearms has caused their price to be often over $10,000, although transferable M10 and M11 submachine guns (more commonly known as “Mac 10′s”) can still be purchased for around $3,500. Machine guns manufactured after the FOPA’s enactment can be sold only to law enforcement and government agencies, exported, or in some cases held as inventory by licensed manufacturers and dealers. Non-transferrable guns made after 1986 are usually priced only a few hundred dollars more than their semi-automatic counterparts, whereas a machine gun that can be legally transferred commands a huge premium.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 4:49 PM

I didn’t any more than I think you are implying that the Bill of Rights guarantees you an assault rifle. It doesn’t.
JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Perhaps an endorsement from someone who wasn’t on Romney’s campaign team was Larry Craig would be a bit more meaningful, hmm?

Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee that I’ll be given an “assault rifle”? Of course not, no more than a drivers license guarantees someone will have a car. What it does is, well, exactly what it says- prevent the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

In the world of you and Flipper Mitt, exactly what kind of weapons should be included in “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Pointy sticks? Clubs? Single shot muskets? How gracious that Romney would allow anyone to own a firearm at all- nevermind the 2nd Amendment tells him to keep his silky smooth hands off them.

Let’s hear it from your boy Flipper:

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts,” Romney said in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. “I support them. I won’t chip away at them.” In fact, as governor, Romney signed America’s first state-level assault-weapons ban.

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Yesteryear’s Romney also backed a federal assault-weapons ban and the national Brady Bill, which created a five-day wait for handgun purchases. “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney said in 1994. However, he added: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”

Yeah, he’s just a gun-owner’s dream candidate isn’t he?

I will say one thing for Romney- he’s a better actor than Fred Thompson in getting people to actually believe he’s remotely conservative.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 4:49 PM

There are videos of him all over the place in his senate run saying that abortion is a woman’s choice and the government should stay out of it. That is a position that would get every other Republican branded a pro-choice RINO or a flip flopper and you and everyone else knows it. But Fred? No, he’s nuanced. That’s absurd.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Uh, there’s a bit of a difference between someone who’s always been in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned, but against criminalization of abortion by the federal government and someone like Flipper who enthusiastically supported abortion rights and adamantly opposed Roe v Wade being overturned, then in preparation for a Presidential race suddenly performing a complete 180 degree reversal.

While I’m strongly in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned as it was a horrible, unjustifyable decision, abortion isn’t exactly #1 on my radar… but the way that Romney so blatantly pandered on the issue doesn’t exactly spell political integrity now does it?

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Hollowpoint-

Just not gonna give up on your right to an AK-47, are you?

Well we can go around and around on this one but neither will convince the other. I have no issue restricing certain military grade weapons from being in the hands of the general public. I know you disagree. I also have zero problem with a 5 day waiting period and background checks and registration. I know this is at odds with your position.

As to Craig being on Romney’s campaign, why do you think he supports him? Cause he doesn’t support him? I’m not sure how that logic works. Craig, a life member of the NRA and a board member of the NRA volutarily signed up to support Romney because he supports his positions. That includes his views on guns.

I guess you have no problem with any of the other issues you brought up about Romney since you didn’t bring any rebuttals to what I posted. Good. I’m glad we got 99% agreement that Romney is a stud and since you aren’t a single issue voter I’m sure 99% is enough to win you over.

I will sleep well tonight.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM

What I’d like to know is why this story wasn’t about Ron Paul.

km on July 10, 2007 at 5:04 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Just not gonna give up on your right to an AK-47, are you?

Well we can go around and around on this one but neither will convince the other.

Since it is a legal right how can you possibly argue otherwise?

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 5:04 PM

O/T….

How can anyone deny, with all the instances of it that can be linked to, that there is a few folks around here who ALWAYS go for the insults?

Dusty, IMHO, you injected yourself into a discussion jack made to a commenter that has a history of skewering other candidates for certain behavior and then when it is shown that fred? has the same behavior, he changes his tune. Jacks comment was apropos to that person if not to you. Also he called Jack a “filthy lawyer”.

You misunderstood the context and now your interaction with Jack is off into left field.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 5:05 PM

The second amendment links the individual’s right to bear arms to the need for a well-regulated militia. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the weapons de jur were muskets, flint lock pistols, etc. As weapons change, the amendment needs be interpreted (even by non-activist judges) to account for the changing times. Should a constitutional amendment designed to protect a person’s right to carry a musket also provide a person with an absolute right to carry a concealed handgun w/ silencer, an assault rifle capable of 100 rpm, an RPG. At some point, we are going to have to draw the line. The right to bear arms is not absolute. The question is where do we draw the line. For that, we need local legislation. What works in Montana will not work in NYC — which is Rudy’s position, by the way.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Sure. If that a sincere question, I’ll bite. CS serves as a counter-weight to the Fred support for a specific reason – namely that said support is largely emotional in nature, (for some people).

And that’s understandable. Any investment in a candidate is personal and when $ is involved, if you question the candidate, it is often perceived as a personal statement of – you made bad judgment. And taken personally.

He’s only considered a troll by some, because people thing the arguments are circuitous. That is because there aren’t really any answers to the questions of who empty or full, or conservative or politically expedient Fred is until 1 commits to the race, 2 answers some questions.

CS keeps this place from being an echo chamber and asks important questions.

Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 1:23 PM

I wouldn’t mind he-who-should-not-be-mentioned commenting, if he spent half as much time commenting on any of the other candidates! Non-Fred threads he seems lucid and rational (and I agree with him good majority of the time), but anytime Fred is mentioned he goes off his rocker! What is the Fred obsession, you have to make about a quarter of the comments on Fred threads?

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Since it is a legal right how can you possibly argue otherwise?

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Really? I don’t have my copy of the Bill of Rights handy. Can you quote where it grants the legal right to own an AK-47?

I’ll wait here.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Sorry, but by definition RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE! If its not, its not a right.

Problem is that people want to change this RIGHT without amending the Constitution.

By the way… an ARM is not just a gun.. an Arm is by definition a military weapon… one you would carry to war. To be unders “arms” is to be ready for battle.

Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Fred may well be the RINO we don’t know as upposed to Rudy McRomney who we do know.

Conservatives can either back an unelectable congressman or Fred who will probably turn out to be Bush III.

Unless the Republican candidate comes out swinging against liberal madness, the Glacier is a lock.

Valiant on July 10, 2007 at 5:19 PM

The right to bear arms is not absolute. The question is where do we draw the line. For that, we need local legislation. What works in Montana will not work in NYC — which is Rudy’s position, by the way.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Gee, should we also assume that with regards to, say, freedom of speech, religion, rights of the accused or other aspects of the Bill of Rights can be negated by NYC because they don’t work the same as they do in Montana?

Rudy presided over a city that effectively banned handguns completely. Romney banned semi-autos based largely on their cosmetic features. I guess we’re supposed to believe that they’re OK (like Rudy would just be “OK” with Roe v Wade being overturned, something Romney used to oppose) with the rest of the Constitution, just not the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, but one doesn’t get to pick and choose which amendments they’re going to follow.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Folks, ya reckon we can get back on topic here, and get off all these rabbit trails?

Nobody has even addressed the issue of the lack of verifiable documentation; i.e., billing records, statements, cancelled checks…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 5:29 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM

It’s called the second amendment, its right there after the first amendment, just before the third amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected.

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of “militia” as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Really? I don’t have my copy of the Bill of Rights handy. Can you quote where it grants the legal right to own an AK-47?

I’ll wait here.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Your Google broken? What you’re looking for (and apparently unfamilar with) is the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Is a semi-automatic clone of an AK-47 (like the one I own) somehow not an “arm”? Am I not one of the “people”?

Are you suggesting that they left out the last part, which says that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the gun looks scary”?

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 5:32 PM

What does any of this stuff have to do with the LAT trying to smear Fred?

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Folks, ya reckon we can get back on topic here, and get off all these rabbit trails?

Nobody has even addressed the issue of the lack of verifiable documentation; i.e., billing records, statements, cancelled checks…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 5:29 PM

Sounds good, here goes…

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…

Does anyone know if he was a sponsor of McCain-Feingold? He was such a supporting/mover did he co-sponsor?

I also like the Senate aide part! In other words, unnamed source!

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM

I am for anybody that any newspaper with the word Times in it is against.

LakeRuins on July 10, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Hollowpoint-

Just not gonna give up on your right to an AK-47, are you?

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM

And neither am I. Read the 2nd amendment will you please, and then tell me where it restricts the type of arms the people can own. And no, I don’t own an AK-47, but neither would I ever deny the right to own one to anyone who can LEGALLY do so.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Follow-up on the abortion line..

If he was arguing for abortion, why are the pro-choice advocates trying to smear him? Wouldn’t they want someone who has worked with them in the past to get in there?

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Sorry, but by definition RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE! If its not, its not a right. Problem is that people want to change this RIGHT without amending the Constitution. By the way… an ARM is not just a gun.. an Arm is by definition a military weapon… one you would carry to war. To be unders “arms” is to be ready for battle.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Being the strict constructionist / originalist that I am, I would have to agree that your right to carry a late eighteenth century military grade musket is ABSOLUTE. They can have my smoothbore when they pry it from my dead hands. However, you would have to be delusional to think this right is absolute as it applies to twenty-first century military hardware that was not even imagined when the guys with funny wigs were scratching out the constitution. They were talking about muskets and you want to apply it to nuclear weapons!!! I’m sure the Al Qeada sleeper cells already in the US agree with your interpretation. Jack Bauer stops the suitcase Nuke from going off then gets sued for depriving Muhammad of his constitutional right to bear arms.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:37 PM

No, I’m suggesting you are wrong in your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I’m suggesting that the Supreme Court agrees with me.

You can google it.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 5:38 PM

They were talking about muskets and you want to apply it to nuclear weapons!!!

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Now that’s going for the extreme. To put it in another light, the founding fathers applied the 2nd amendment to the most advanced weapons technology of the day. Like everything else, this too has advanced.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM

So, Fred’s not perfect. I believe he’s even admitted the mistake of supporting McCain/Feingold. And no, he’s not Reagan. No one can be Reagan. This looks more and more like the LAT trying to destroy someone who could be a credible candidate against Hitery. It’s also a nice tactic to get conservatives fighting each other. And guess what? It’s working.

Still waiting for the billing records, cancelled checks…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 5:41 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:37 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Uh, fellers, there’s lots of places to argue 2d Amendment stuff. What does any of that have to do with the LAT trying to smear Fred?

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Read the 2nd amendment will you please, and then tell me where it restricts the type of arms the people can own.

Read the 1st Amendment and show me where it says you can’t scream fire in a crowded movie theater.

You guys have got to be kidding me with this stuff, right?

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4