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

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.

Okay, what good would a musket be for ensuring the government doesn’t become tyrannical like England did over the colonies? Wouldn’t it make sense that that technology advances, what you can use to defend yourself would also improve/advance with it?

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 5:43 PM

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

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

He was not, he co-sponsored a amendment to McCain-Feingold with Dianne Feinstein that negotiated a compromise on the maximum amount an individual can give to any candidate per election. That was the extent of his involvement.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 5:46 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

jdawg -

I am actually leaning towards supporting Fred out of any of the current candidates. Was really interested whether he sponsored it.

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 5:46 PM

I find that the LAT trying to destroy him like this is very interesting. It really has the feel of Hitlery all over it.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Still waiting for the billing records, cancelled checks…
jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Billing records are privileged and most likely discarded in less than 16 years. Likewise 16 year old financial records need not and should not be kept. As a lawyer I do not retain 10 year old billing records and advise my clients not to keep financial records older than that. The absence of these documents is very, very understandable. The minutes which would be found in the much smaller corporate records file would be maintained as long as the corporation was active. That explains the existence of the minutes after 16 years.

You cannot just disregard the documentation that exists just because other documentation that might have existed at some previous time has not also been produced. The minutes exist, and they must be confronted and explained. Also, there were eye witnesses to his lobbying activities. One even remembered him acting out a scene from his most recent project “Keep The Change” a Western soon to be released on USA Network. ((The last part about the Western is still just a theory BTW)).

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:53 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:53 PM

The last part about the Western is still just a theory BTW

Kind of like in the absence of an actual contract the assertion in the minutes is also just a theory.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 5:56 PM

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

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 5:43 PM

No. Some of us take those rights protected by the Constitution kinda seriously, being the supreme law of the land and all.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Okay, what good would a musket be for ensuring the government doesn’t become tyrannical like England did over the colonies? Wouldn’t it make sense that that technology advances, what you can use to defend yourself would also improve/advance with it?

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Well, the Feds today have nukes, stealth fighter jets, aircraft carriers, cluster bombs, etc. If the purpose of the 2nd was to allow the people to stand up to the government, then it could not stop individuals from owning any of these advances weapons either. But none of that is in the 2nd. It talks about owning muskets so that the government can call up a militia.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM

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

And exactly what does that have to to with the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms?

Kidding stuff -> Do you want to make it illegal to yell movie in a crowded firehouse too?

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM

A militia today armed with muskets isn’t a militia, its nothing less than a herd of sheep heading to a slaughter.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM

But none of that is in the 2nd. It talks about owning muskets so that the government can call up a militia.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Spoken like a true liberal.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM

But then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who was critical of Thompson’s handling of the hearings and bitterly opposed the McCain-Feingold measure, said recently that he and other conservatives might be willing to forgive those chapters of Thompson’s Senate career and consider supporting him for president.

Unlike McCain, Santorum said, Thompson has not “made a career of poking conservative colleagues in the eye.”

Can’t get much more conservative that Santorum, got knock from his seat because he wouldn’t compromise his conservative principles!

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 6:05 PM

It talks about owning muskets so that the government can call up a militia.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Where does it say “muskets” in the second amendment?

Can we get back on the LAT issue? AP, can we open a firearms thread? Sorry, we already have one – the OHSA vs. NRA thread! Let move the 2nd amendment talk there.

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 6:08 PM

It’s pretty clear that this issue needs to be looked into further. NOT because we need to skewer fred? but because fred? has lied about his pro-choice position on a regular basis. He even produced a video where he hides behind his wife and kids claiming he has always been pro-life.

The best thing for freddie boy to do is…

A) Admit that in 1994 he was most assuredly pro-choice
B) Explain when and why he suddenly became pro-choice
C) Admit that he did lobby for this group in 1991, but it’s a moot point because he already admitted he was pro-choice as late as 1994.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Spoken like a true liberal.

Hold on there Kowboy, no need to get personal, check out his blog. He is a lawyer, not a liberal. His blog shows him to be pretty damn conservative, other than his rather narrow reading of the 2nd.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM

But none of that is in the 2nd. It talks about owning muskets so that the government can call up a militia.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM

The word musket doesn’t appear anywhere, and doesn’t imply that any militia would be called up by the government, nor does it state that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Do a little more research and you’ll understand what their intent was.

Does that mean the 2nd Amendement protects ownership of nuclear weapons and 155mm howizers? Few would argue that; those aren’t individual weapons that a person would bear. A so called “assault rifle”? Absolutely; the muskets used in the Revolutionary War were the “assault weapons” of their day.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 6:12 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM

A) Admit that in 1994 he was most assuredly pro-choice
B) Explain when and why he suddenly became pro-choice
C) Admit that he did lobby for this group in 1991, but it’s a moot point because he already admitted he was pro-choice as late as 1994.

What a dufus, he wouldnt have to admit a) if c were true.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Can we get back on the LAT issue? AP, can we open a firearms thread? Sorry, we already have one – the OHSA vs. NRA thread! Let move the 2nd amendment talk there.

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 6:08 PM

The 2nd talk started with csdeven stating the only reason Hollowpoint supported Fred was his stance on the 2nd. So to begin with, it was tied to this post. It’s just gone a little far O/T is all. :)

And besides, cs won’t post in a thread that doesn’t have Fred as the subject, so all debates with him, no matter the subject, have to occur in these threads.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:14 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 5:53 PM

From: 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 movie you cite didn’t show till the next year, easily. Doubtful this democratic/Hitlery-supporting operative saw the movie before it was released.

More:

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:

None of this has been explained.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Actually cs posts quite often on non-Fred threads and is usually rational there!

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:14 PM

And besides, cs won’t post in a thread that doesn’t have Fred as the subject, so all debates with him, no matter the subject, have to occur in these threads.

Sorry thats just not true, as much as I enjoy screwing with csdeven head in the Fred threads he does post in other threads and is usually quite rational.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Yeah. I’m waiting for them to admit that we must have limitations on the means by which we defend ourselves and that the ONLY issue is exactly where do those limitations begin.

I understand their reluctance because once you start down the slippery slope of voluntarily giving in to the gun grabbers, it’s hard to say where they will stop. The NRA is un-moving on this because the gun grabbers want ALL the guns and cannot be trusted to agree to reasonable rights for citizens to own high powered rifles, machine guns, etc.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Sorry thats just not true, as much as I enjoy screwing with csdeven head in the Fred threads he does post in other threads and is usually quite rational.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Then I stand corrected and apologize to cs for the misstatement. I have never personally seen him post on another thread so I made a conclusion based on that.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Spoken like a true liberal.
Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Dems fightin’ words. I’m from Texas … School of Law.

Seriously, if you are going to apply a strict constructionist / originalist process to the liberal’s purported “right to privacy”, you have to do the same thing with the right to carry a firearm. Once we find ourselves beyond the intent of the original drafters (the right to bear cluster bombs, for example), we are heading into uncharted waters. Even non-activist judges need to read the tea leaves and figure out how the Constitution applies to the current situation — OR WHETHER IT DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL.

I imagine that even Scalia would concede that the 2nd is silent on the issue of the right to bear cluster bombs — thus a legitimate issue for legistation is controlling cluster bombs. The same could be said for other modern weapons not contemplated by the drafters.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM

You cannot just disregard the documentation that exists just because other documentation that might have existed at some previous time has not also been produced. The minutes exist, and they must be confronted and explained. Also, there were eye witnesses to his lobbying activities. One even remembered him acting out a scene from his most recent project “Keep The Change” a Western soon to be released on USA Network. ((The last part about the Western is still just a theory BTW)).

And as we all know, such “minutes” or “memos” can be easily forged. WE have all seen this happen before, have we not? So you seem to be saying that with the absense of anything else, these “documents” should be taken as gospel? Please…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Can we get back on the LAT issue?
SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 6:08 PM

OK, would would you like to talk about that hasn’t been said at least three times in this thread already?

We don’t really know anything. Even if you accept the LAT article as 100% true, it’s not clear whether Thompson personally lobbied anyone, or was some kind of go-between with his firm. And the LAT account is a bit suspect given that the sources are Hillary supporters and that the person who was to be lobbied by Thompson denied it happened.

Even worst case scenario: Allegations completely true, Thompson did lobby the White House- it doesn’t mean all that much to all but the most hard core pro-life activists. It was 16 years ago, and neither lobbyists nor lawyers are expected to represent only those causes they believe in. Furthermore, the issue at hand was over funding for clinics that provided abortion counselling; not exactly the same as pushing for free abortions courtesy of Uncle Sam.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Seriously, if you are going to apply a strict constructionist / originalist process to the liberal’s purported “right to privacy”,

Where have you found the right to privacy in the constitution? Which article or amendment?

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 6:21 PM

I imagine that even Scalia would concede that the 2nd is silent on the issue of the right to bear cluster bombs — thus a legitimate issue for legistation is controlling cluster bombs. The same could be said for other modern weapons not contemplated by the drafters.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Yes, there is an extreme to the issue as there is for all issues. Actually, csdeven has put it exactly as I would.

I understand their reluctance because once you start down the slippery slope of voluntarily giving in to the gun grabbers, it’s hard to say where they will stop. The NRA is un-moving on this because the gun grabbers want ALL the guns and cannot be trusted to agree to reasonable rights for citizens to own high powered rifles, machine guns, etc.

Oh, and I’m from Tennessee. No harm intended in the comment. Just wanted to see if I could get a rise out of ya. :)

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:23 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Actualy, thats the point I was trying to make… a strict reading of the Constitution, based on the Framers intent, WOULD allow you to have cluster bombs… as ridiculous as that is…

Key here is that we have left it to the courts to reinterpret that Right… because they didn’t want to have the debate about the Amendment…

The Constitution is NOT a perfect document… just like with the slavery issue it at times needs to be fixed… problem is that with the 2nd amendment, that has not happened.

Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 6:27 PM

Oh… and by the way, its perfectly legal to yell FIRE in a crowded auditorium… there is no prior restraint…

And at times it would be prudent to do so… like.. if there was a fire?

You may have to pay a penalty AFTER yelling it… Speech is free, you may say what you wish… but there may be consequences…

Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 6:30 PM

The movie you cite didn’t show till the next year, easily. Doubtful this democratic/Hitlery-supporting operative saw the movie before it was released.

More:

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:

None of this has been explained.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Actually Captain Ed has updated with the fact that Fred started with Arent Fox in April of 1991, and as I stated before, “Keep The Change” was most probably shot in 1991 or before and would be Fred’s most current acting work at the time of the purported exchange. It would be natural for him to re-enact his most recent work, because he could still recall his lines. Also, no where in the story did the witness say she recognized the movie that Fred was re-enacting. Therefore it is still possible that her recollection was correct. He was re-enacting one of his recently acted scenes from a movie that was only a few months away from being released. I see nothing that strains credibility.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Would any of this even be an issue if fred? would have just admitted that he was pro-choice in 1994? Had he done that, everything previous to 1994 would be moot. Hence, a non story. The LAT is only reporting what someone else told them. They report it because it’s a story, because fred is trying to come off as pro-life.

That is my issue with him. He’s lying. He’s pretending he has always been pro-life when we know for a fact that he was pro-choice in 1994.

What if he does prove he didn’t work for the firm in 1991? Does he claim he was pro-life in 1991, but for some reason became pro-choice in 1994 and now in 2007 he is pro-life again? fred? is between a rock and a hard spot.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 6:34 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM

I imagine that even Scalia would concede that the 2nd is silent on the issue of the right to bear cluster bombs

I think not……

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/LevinsonBYU.html

It is certainly worth noting, though, that Justice Scalia himself has also indicated a certain receptiveness to Second Amendment arguments. Thus he writes in his recent Tanner Lectures, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, that even if there would be “few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard,” this would simply demonstrate that the Founders were right when they feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may like the abridgement of property rights and like the elimination of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not reductions of rights. [18]

Even more interesting is an extended footnote, replying to Professor Laurence Tribe’s description of the Second Amendment as being simply “seemingly state- militia-based” rather than “supporting broad principles” of private ownership of guns. [19] Scalia notes “several flaws” with Tribe’s argument, including the assumption that the word “militia” refers only to “”a select group of citizen-soldiers’. . . rather than, as the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 1776 defined it, “the body of the people, trained to arms.”‘ [20] “It would also be strange,” he goes on to say, “to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated “Militia.’ Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that.” [21] Scalia concludes: [Page 133]

It is very likely that modern Americans no longer look contemptuously, as Madison did, upon the governments of Europe that “are afraid to trust the people with arms,” The Federalist No. 46; and the. . . Constitution that Professor Tribe espouses will probably give effect to that new sentiment by effectively eliminating the Second Amendment. But there is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states. [22]

Scalia’s final sentence is accurate, of course, only if one concludes that the Second Amendment is not referred to in the “privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States” that states are forbidden to abridge as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. [23]

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM

The Constitution is NOT a perfect document… just like with the slavery issue it at times needs to be fixed… problem is that with the 2nd amendment, that has not happened.

Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 6:27 PM

In some ways it has. There are strict requirements for owning fully automatic weapons, and possessing nuclear material is a felony. The problem arises when the talk turns to “assault” weapons. By some people’s definition, ANY semi-automatic weapon is an assault weapon. This of course would include shotguns, rifles made specifically for hunting, etc.

Again, I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to buy a semi-auto AK-47. I have many friends who own AR-15′s, SKS’s, etc. These guns would also fall under the same ban.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:36 PM

He was re-enacting one of his recently acted scenes from a movie that was only a few months away from being released.

And you know this how….

Were you there?

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Therefore it is still possible that her recollection was correct.

It is equally possible that she’s a lying scum-sucking democrat operative who did this at the bidding of hitlery.

Knowing full well the LAT would run with anything they said.

Also knowing full well some would just accept it blindly, like good little sheeple…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM

No. Some of us take those rights protected by the Constitution kinda seriously, being the supreme law of the land and all.

Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 5:57 PM

See this is where I get confused. Leaving aside your dubious understanding of the Bill of Rights and limitations that can be place on them

and this is for you jdawg, watch me brings this back on topic

how can you support Fred when he was a champion of a law that was found to be an unconstitutional attack on the 1st Amendment?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go play with my RPG launcher. Its protected under the 2nd Amendment ya know.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go play with my RPG launcher. Its protected under the 2nd Amendment ya know.

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM

If you have the right permits it is.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:40 PM

csdeven,

I do not believe that Fred was pro-choice in ’94. His voting record on abortion is quite solid, and I’ll take that over some hyped web site that anyone could have put together and parsed to try to make a point.

You’ve been down that road so many times you’re wearing ruts in it.

Try a different route.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Saw this on several blogs, so I’ll quote it here:

“…if the abortion group isn’t willing to produce the invoices they paid the law firm (which will have every [bad word]ing lawyer’s name on the bill), they should go to hell.”

Ditto that.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:44 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM

See this is where I get confused.

If we are forced to judge by what you have posted and since we have nothing else to judge you by we must make our judgment upon what you have posted, then clearly this is not where you get confused, but you in fact get confused whenever you attempt to think.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Missed my point.

They have not fixed the problem.

The founders never envisioned anything bigger than artillery, somthing that sat in most Town Squares. So the ARM at the time was a designated MILITARY arm… You could even have privatly owned WARSHIPS!!! Merchants often carried cannons for protection.

Problem is that technology evolved, but the Constitution did not. We have not had the Constitutional debate about the origional intent, and fixed the Constitution. We allowed the Court to reinterpret it beyond the framers clearly stated intent… (for good reason mind you, but its left us in a mess now…).

Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 6:45 PM

From: http://www.time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/index.html?page=2

On a more substantive note, the LA Times reported Saturday that in 1991 Thompson lobbied for a pro-choice group looking to ease the “gag rule” restriction that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money. It’s very much a “he said, she said” kind of story, with the group’s president saying definitively that Thompson lobbied for them and Thompson’s folks saying definitively he did not. Reporter Michael Finnegan also obtained minutes from one of the group’s meeting stating that “the association had hired Fred Thompson Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration” on the abortion counseling rule. John Sununu, however, who was the White House official the group wanted Thompson to lobby about the rule, says he never met with Thompson.

Finnegan also recites Thompson’s not-quite-pure pro-life history. It’s beginning to be clear that Thompson was not an ardent pro-lifer earlier in his career, either as a lobbyist or senator, even though he received top marks on his voting record from pro-life groups. Will this become a problem for Thompson as he officially enters the race? Probably, but the attacks will most likely come from the second-tier. Thompson faces little to no threat on the life issue from Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom have their own problems on the subject, though John McCain could conceivably try to exploit the issue against his old friend if he chose to go that route.

So, the person Fred supposedly lobbied said it never happened.

Much ado over nothing.

What’s that saying? Oh, yeah, “the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.”

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:50 PM

Missed my point.

They have not fixed the problem.

The founders never envisioned anything bigger than artillery, somthing that sat in most Town Squares. So the ARM at the time was a designated MILITARY arm… You could even have privatly owned WARSHIPS!!! Merchants often carried cannons for protection.

Problem is that technology evolved, but the Constitution did not. We have not had the Constitutional debate about the origional intent, and fixed the Constitution. We allowed the Court to reinterpret it beyond the framers clearly stated intent… (for good reason mind you, but its left us in a mess now…).

Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 6:45 PM

I wonder if I missed your point or if we’re really talking about 2 different things here. I believe the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to own a firearm. By “firearm” I mean guns, not military hardware. I really don’t see the need for anyone to own a 105mm Howitzer, and agree that premise is a bit far fetched. But as csdeven said, if you start letting the government restrict gun ownership, where will it stop? The far left wouldn’t stop until just saying you wanted to own a gun was illegal and you and I both know that.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:53 PM

http://conservativesuperiority.com/2007/07/09/why-hillary-is-scared-of-fred/

Wonder if this might have something to do with the LAT hit piece?

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:53 PM

I think not……

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/LevinsonBYU.html

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Very interesting. I think I may stand corrected. However, Scalia failed to employ these musings when he struck down Brady on any issue but the 2nd. It may be easier to go through these thought exercises in an academic environment, but when it came time to creating constitutional precedent he hesistant to use an extreme (and absurd) interpretation. There is no doubt an argument that the right to bear arms is unlimited, but it is only an argument. We are in a grey area where reasonable minds could differ on what the Constitution means or was intended to mean. I tend to think the more reasonable approach is to conclude that it does not protect the right to carry a suitcase nuke or cluster bombs — so now we are on the slippery slope.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Problem is that technology evolved, but the Constitution did not. We have not had the Constitutional debate about the origional intent, and fixed the Constitution. We allowed the Court to reinterpret it beyond the framers clearly stated intent… (for good reason mind you, but its left us in a mess now…).

Yep, however since Parker vs. D.C it would appear that SCOTUS is taking the individual right position and may well be willing to hear cases regarding the definition of what constitutes a constitutionally guaranteed firearm.

Scalia notes “several flaws” with Tribe’s argument, including the assumption that the word “militia” refers only to “”a select group of citizen-soldiers’. . . rather than, as the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 1776 defined it, “the body of the people, trained to arms.”‘ [20] “It would also be strange,” he goes on to say, “to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated “Militia.’ Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that.” [21] Scalia concludes: [Page 133]

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:59 PM

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Ok, lets try to put it to rest.

fred? signed a document in 1994 where he checked the box that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. He also was quoted saying it here.

Now, how can he not be pro-choice after making those statements?

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:01 PM

I tend to think the more reasonable approach is to conclude that it does not protect the right to carry a suitcase nuke or cluster bombs — so now we are on the slippery slope.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:57 PM

I don’t believe any of us, including the NRA, are asking for nukes or cluster bombs! Silly straw man!!

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 7:04 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:57 PM

However, Scalia failed to employ these musings when he struck down Brady on any issue but the 2nd.

Not being a lawyer myself I am forced to rely on the opinions of those more learned than myself.

Perhaps Justice Scalia chose to ignore the actual subject matter of the Brady Act because he had far bigger fish to fry (and the requisite number of votes to pour the hot oil) with regard to very broad issues of federal power and the so- called “unitary executive.” [16] Ironically enough, although a decision striking down the Brady Act on Second Amendment grounds would have been far more of a doctrinal sensation, it would have in fact generated less confusion about general constitutional norms than did the actual decision in Printz, which, because of its sweeping comments about state autonomy and the ostensible Article II creation of a unitary executive, potentially calls into question vast aspects of the modern state. [17] Second Amendment invalidation of the Brady Act, on the other hand, would have little gravitational force regarding, say, the so-called “independent” agencies (not formally accountable to the President) or unfunded mandates imposed on the states, both of which are now open questions following Printz.[Page 132]

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:05 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:01 PM

1) There is no signature on that web page, and no PDF file to look at so I really don’t know for certain that he signed anything of the sort in ’94.

2) So he was quoted saying something 13 years ago by a blog with an agenda. hmmmm. Big deal.

3) As has been pointed out earlier, record trumps rhetoric. His votes are not those of a pro-abortionist, so your constant harping is meaningless to me.

“The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on”

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I don’t believe any of us, including the NRA, are asking for nukes or cluster bombs! Silly straw man!!

SSG Fuzzy on July 10, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Sometimes I do wish they’d let me wear a flamethrower to work though. I could get a lot done.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 7:08 PM

So, the person Fred supposedly lobbied said it never happened.

Much ado over nothing.

What’s that saying? Oh, yeah, “the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.”

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:50 PM

Actually, from the LAT article …

Sununu said in a telephone interview: “I don’t recall him ever lobbying me on that at all. I don’t think that ever happened. In fact, I know that never happened.” He added that he had “absolutely no idea” whether Thompson had met with anybody else at the White House

I think the LAT included the whole quote because the denial was rather weasley: “I don’t recall, I don’t think. In fact, I know…, but I have absolutely no idea” A denial is very easy, it goes like this: Q: Did Fred lobby you? A: No. Sununu’s denial was kinda weak.

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 7:09 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Now, how can he not be pro-choice after making those statements?

It’s called a federalist approach, It balances his pro-life views with the realities of life. As much as I would like to see abortion done away with it isnt going to 100 percent happen.

On Abortion: “Government should stay out of it… The ultimate decision must be made by the women… Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” — Fred Thompson, July 1994

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:10 PM

BTW, cs,:

According to http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=22003#408,

Project Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any negative campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.

You might want to be careful, since you’ve been using this site as a tool to bash Fred! and those who support him. I think you might want to find a different source…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:11 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Kindalike your argument; he didn’t say X the way I think he sould say X, so he really meant Y.

Hmmmm.

Sorry, that dawg just ain’t gonna hunt.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:13 PM

…In fact, I know that never happened.”

Nuff said.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Not being a lawyer myself I am forced to rely on the opinions of those more learned than myself.
doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:05 PM

You are doing fine. My point (as confirmed by your article) was that Scalia did legal gymnastics to strike down Brady without having to confront it on the issue of the 2nd. Even he did not want to go there…

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 7:14 PM

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 6:53 PM

That’s nice and all, but just who is Brandon? He makes an awful lot of assumptions about Hillary’s camp and what they are thinking. If he had a email from Hillary’s camp saying they were scared of fred? then I would agree with him. But from what he referenced, he has nothing but his interpretation of the events to claim they are scared of fred?.

Do you think all these candidates think fred? has been challenged yet? Everyone knows he hasn’t been. As a matter of fact we are hearing more and more people (pundits etc) say that no one really knows what fred? stands for because he hasn’t been pressed on issues. I think it’s mistake on anyones part to think any experienced well oiled machine like the Clinton’s have going doesn’t take into account that freds? support is coming mostly from his exposure from his acting career. #ell, it’s entirely possible that doing it this way is the cheapest and fastest way for the Clinton’s to knock fred? out of the race. Then all they have left is Rudy and MITT! to marginalize and she’s home free. So it may be that it isn’t so much that fred? scares them, he’s just one of the guys they have to destroy in order to get the WH in 08.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:17 PM

He added that he had “absolutely no idea” whether Thompson had met with anybody else at the White House

dogs bark, caravan gets stuck in the mud, attacked by said dogs…

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 7:19 PM

So it may be that it isn’t so much that fred? scares them, he’s just one of the guys they have to destroy in order to get the WH in 08.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:17 PM

But using that logic, why would they attack someone not even in the race? Seems to me they’d concentrate their efforts going after Rudy and Mitt rather than someone who hasn’t declared yet.

And saying he “might declare” doesn’t support your argument either. Hell, everyone here “might declare”. If that’s the case, the Clinton smear machine better get it in high gear because they’ve got a boatload of work to do.

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 7:24 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:17 PM

There is a difference between Hillary’s 45% in the Rasmussen poll and Fred’s too. Hillary has nowhere to go but down, with such high unfavorable ratings she is not likely to gain on that 45% but Fred’s unfavorable ratings are at a relatively low at 12% giving Fred huge room to grow. As we move towards the primaries states where Romney had built a large machine, and spent loads of money doing it, we see Fred Thompson closing the gap in Iowa, New Hampshire, and will probably lead outright in South Carolina by July’s end. This is truly amazing once you factor in that Thompson is spending next to nothing other than hiring key people but Romney (and others) are spending money on advertising like drunken sailors in the early primary states yet their numbers drop or they’re stagnant. Fred hasn’t had to spend money yet he is running second in Iowa, running second or leading in South Carolina, and in New Hampshire all the candidates are trending down except for Thompson who continues to move up.

The reasoning is sound, and we all know how the Clintons operate. We also know the MSM is nothing more than lapdogs for the Hitlery machine. So naturally, anything the MSM can to bring up Freds negatives is only going to benefit Hitlery. If Freds polling wasn’t so good, you think these hit pieces would be coming out? I don’t think so.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:26 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 7:14 PM

You are doing fine. My point (as confirmed by your article) was that Scalia did legal gymnastics to strike down Brady without having to confront it on the issue of the 2nd. Even he did not want to go there…

Perhaps not if he didn’t have to, However his Tanner Lectures seem to indicate a willingness to do so should the issue come up directly.

It is certainly worth noting, though, that Justice Scalia himself has also indicated a certain receptiveness to Second Amendment arguments. Thus he writes in his recent Tanner Lectures, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, that even if there would be “few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard,” this would simply demonstrate that the Founders were right when they feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may like the abridgement of property rights and like the elimination of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not reductions of rights. [18]

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:31 PM

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I have seen the PDF WITH his signature on it. It was linked here on HA. I assumed you had seen it, but I’ll try to track it down for you if it will make a difference for you.

You said this….

“csdeven,
I do not believe that Fred was pro-choice in ‘94.”

Was he quoted accurately or not? Is the questionaire accurate or not. If they are accurate then fred?, was in fact, pro-choice. At that point it doesn’t matter what you want to believe the facts are the facts.

So, you are then left with accepting that he was pro-choice and he has changed his position, or you and I can continue this dance with me pointing out the facts, and you marginalizing them with accusations of purposeful misrepresentation (on the part of Project Vote Smart because they are reporting the answers fred? gave in 1994) and outright lies (on the part of Republican Liberty who did the 1994 interview, and the Libertarian Republican, which quoted the interview in the blog you say has an agenda). Those are two very credible sources that have been around way longer than fred? has been a non-candidate. If this is some sort of set up, then these two sources would have had to known fred? was gonna run in 2007 and got their ducks in a row to discredit him 13 years in advance.

C’mon, it’s obvious that fred? was pro-choice in 1994 so this fiasco with the LAT is a moot point other than to bring more attention to the fact that he was pro-choice in 1994 AND he’s friggen lying about it. AND that pisses me off more than his changing positions.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:11 PM

I am not campaigning for fred? or for anyone opposing fred?.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:38 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:38 PM

C’mon, it’s obvious that fred? was pro-choice in 1994

Only in your twisted little mind, to everyone else it is clear he was a pro-life federalist.

I am not campaigning for fred? or for anyone opposing fred?.

But you are campaigning against Fred with lies half truth and intentional distortions of the truth.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:43 PM

It’s called a federalist approach, It balances his pro-life views with the realities of life. As much as I would like to see abortion done away with it isnt going to 100 percent happen.
doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:10 PM

A person can be personally pro-life and still be a federalist. I am.

fred? had the opportunity to reject abortion outright, but he did not. He said that all abortion in the first trimester was ok with him.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:45 PM

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:43 PM

You took the words right off my keyboard.

cs, what he said…

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:48 PM

AND that pisses me off more than his changing positions

Sorry, I think where Freds concerned, its almost pathological. That’s why I used the FDS term before.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Apparently, cs, his voting record means nothing. It never existed, right?

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Why? I’d say the 45/45 poll number but that doesn’t mean they are scared. This opportunity raised itself and they used it. But again, that is opinion, just as the Climton’s being scared is an opinion.

And they have attacked Rudy and Mitt!. Remember doggate?

And I agree. fred? is a non-candidate and it’s silly to vote for him in a poll designed for actual candidates. But people do.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:54 PM

From cbn.com:

“From what I’ve heard people are not biting on the story. They consider the source as well as the modus operandi, someone steps forward who is pro-life and is appealing to conservatives and he is attacked for being pro-abortion in an effort to drive a wedge between him and the base. The story looks suspect, but even if there is truth in it, his Senate record is solid on the life issue. I don’t think this is going anywhere.”

But that means nothing to some folks.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Apparently, cs, his voting record means nothing. It never existed, right?
jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:51 PM

I never said that. It’s clear he voted pro-life, but that was well after announcing he was pro-choice. He is a liar. Period.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:56 PM

It’s clear he voted pro-life

But you don’t care. You’d rather twist something accredited to him 13 years ago instead of looking at what he actually did.

That’s just wrong, and your obsession with it is really scary.

jdawg on July 10, 2007 at 7:58 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:45 PM

A person can be personally pro-life and still be a federalist. I am.

So am I, however I, like Fred, recognize that certain aspects of abortion are never going to go away.

fred? had the opportunity to reject abortion outright, but he did not. He said that all abortion in the first trimester was ok with him.

Look carefully at what he said.

Thompson:

Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the women. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.

He didnt say it was O.K., he said it should be legal at the state level, that the federal government should not be in the abortion business and that that the government should treat its citizens like adults.

Sorry but thats a federalist view if ever there is one.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:59 PM

1994 pro-choice
2007 claims he’s been pro-life the whole time

fred? is a liar.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 8:00 PM

1994 pro-choice
2007 claims he’s been pro-life the whole time

fred? is a liar.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 8:00 PM

If you repeat it often enough, it must be true. At least that’s what the liberals believe.

speed911 on July 10, 2007 at 8:02 PM

If fred? was speaking just as a federalist he would not have nuanced his position to only include abortion in the first trimester. A real federalist position would leave it totally up to the states. No nuancing required.

fred? is a fake and a liar.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 8:05 PM

speed911 on July 10, 2007 at 8:02 PM

If you repeat it often enough, it must be true. At least that’s what the liberals believe.

Heh heh remember the scene at the end of Animal House where Chip Diller is standing in the middle of the riot screaming “Remain calm…All is well…” remind you of anything here…..

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:06 PM

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Yes! Move along, nothing to see here…nothing at all.

speed911 on July 10, 2007 at 8:11 PM

New Fred thread, just ripe for hijacking……..In 3, 2, 1………

speed911 on July 10, 2007 at 8:13 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 8:05 PM

If fred? was speaking just as a federalist he would not have nuanced his position to only include abortion in the first trimester. A real federalist position would leave it totally up to the states. No nuancing required.

That would be federalist position, not a pro-life federalist position, which Fred obviously was. The fact that as you put it he nuanced his position clearly indicates that on a personal level he opposed abortion and said there must be limitations and here is where I am setting them.

The fact that he set it at the first trimester probably had more to do with his recognition that there was no way in hell that the more restrictive limitations were going to be accepted than it did with his being pro-abortion.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Rudy also has a nuanced position on abortion. He is personally against it, but has stated he would be okay with Roe being overturned or not overturned as precedent. He would have no problem with (and would actual appoint judges that would effectuate) a senario where Roe would be overruled and the states would decide on the legality of abortion. Ultimately, he supports a woman’s right to choose. How is this different from Fred’s position — and don’t just make some vague reference to his voting record. What restrictions exactly did he vote for or against while in the Senate and does that vote really change his prior statements concerning his core beliefs in 1994 wherein he stated that he thinks a woman should have the right to choose.

If Fred and Rudy are just two sides of the same coin on this hot button issue, wouldn’t you rather have a guy with extensive executive experience, skilled at sticking a hot poker in the eye of the NYT, who fought the mafia an won, who understands the war against Islamic fundamentalism, who can retain his composure under extreme stress (like two building falling on top of him). If you are going to support a RINO why not support the most qualified one?

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 8:27 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 8:27 PM

No, Rudy is pro-abortion but is ok with it being overturned. Fred is Pro-life. Pretty big difference.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:31 PM

No, Rudy is pro-abortion but is ok with it being overturned. Fred is Pro-life. Pretty big difference.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:31 PM

No, Rudy is not “Pro-Abortion”. He has stated that he is personally opposed to abortion and adoptions went up while he was mayor, yadda, yadda, yadda, nuance, nuance, nuance. He is not Pro-Abortion, but he might be described as Pro-Choice — which is different. Likewise, Fred has stated that, “The ultimate decision must be made by the women. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” That is not Pro-Life. That is Pro-decision, er Pro-Choice. What vote did Fred cast in the Senate while he was racking up that perfect voting record that would alters that unequivocal Pro-Choice statement?

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 9:03 PM

Fred scares the begeebers out of Democrats.

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

Smells like overconfidence.

I really don’t care about bait n’switch Freddie. Call me when he announces, like say in October 2012.

BKennedy on July 10, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Once more, this story is nothing! I look at Fred’s votes; I look at John Roberts.

sophiesmom on July 10, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Rudy is pro-abortion but is ok with it being overturned. Fred is Pro-life. Pretty big difference.
doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:31 PM

What planet do these people live on where they think a President who “doesn’t really mind all that much” the idea of a conservative judge will somehow manage to get one APPOINTED?

Then they see a fleck of spittle some moonbat drooled on Fred Thompson’s otherwise stellar public record on the subject and say, “Eh, looks about the same to me.”

“…And being mayor of a city is sorta like being President of the United States. Compared to that, being a federal prosecutor and US Senator has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government!”

I guess if the polls show a gigantic dive in the next week from these liberal hit pieces, I might have to re-evaluate my view of the world. But for now I’m just going to operate under the assumption that these deranged Spambots are WAAYY over-represented on the Internet compared to reality.

logis on July 10, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch, munch.

/popcorn. Good reading, all! I insist on buying the first round in SD.

RushBaby on July 10, 2007 at 9:51 PM

Anyone terribly bothered by any of this?

No.

Purple Fury on July 10, 2007 at 9:55 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 9:03 PM

I’d like to find out how many votes on abortion he DIDN’T bother to vote on. My understanding is that the votes he did make were less than earth shattering. Did fred? avoid votes because he didn’t want to take a position?

The guy is a fake and a liar and I wouldn’t put it past him.

1994 pro-choice
2007 always been pro-life

That equals liar.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 11:10 PM

Fred!

saved on July 11, 2007 at 7:13 AM

That would be federalist position, not a pro-life federalist position, which Fred obviously was. The fact that as you put it he nuanced his position clearly indicates that on a personal level he opposed abortion and said there must be limitations and here is where I am setting them.

The fact that he set it at the first trimester probably had more to do with his recognition that there was no way in hell that the more restrictive limitations were going to be accepted than it did with his being pro-abortion.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Then doesn’t fred? hold a federalist pro-choice position, since he didn’t say that he personally opposes all abortion, but rather that all abortion should be legal in the first trimester?

“Probably”. Interesting word because this is the exact reason why fred? is getting zero support from me (and many, many others) until he actually announces his candidacy. Then we can find out what he really thinks and “probably” wont be in the lexicon that is used to describe freds? positions.

csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 7:55 AM

When I see Dems protest this much against someone who hasn’t even yet declared his candidacy, anything the ever so liberal LAT writes couldn’t bother me in the least. When Fred announces that he is in the race to win….he’ll get my contribution and my vote.

lynnv on July 11, 2007 at 8:09 AM

When I see Dems protest this much against someone who hasn’t even yet declared his candidacy, anything the ever so liberal LAT writes couldn’t bother me in the least. When Fred announces that he is in the race to win….he’ll get my contribution and my vote.
lynnv on July 11, 2007 at 8:09 AM

It isn’t just the dems. There are many, many, credible conservatives who do not support fred? because his conservative credentials are very questionable.

csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 8:45 AM

It isn’t just the dems. There are many, many, credible conservatives who do not support fred? because his conservative credentials are very questionable.

csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 8:45 AM

We know you don’t like him, out of the 292 posts so far on this thread you’ve made 32! Give it a break, we know you hate/despise him! You’ve made your point already!

SSG Fuzzy on July 11, 2007 at 12:34 PM

SSG Fuzzy on July 11, 2007 at 12:34 PM

And that’s not even counting the hundreds of posts on other Fred! threads.

jdawg on July 11, 2007 at 12:57 PM

“Will conservatives continue to be attracted to him once they know more about his record?”

As long as Fred continues as the best option available, then yes.

Problem with this quesiton is that we are also learning more about the other candidates, and their records aren’t all that great either.

I still like Duncan Hunter the best, but his campaign just can’t seem to get out of the starting blocks.

Lawrence on July 11, 2007 at 1:00 PM

I insist on buying the first round in SD.

RushBaby on July 10, 2007 at 9:51 PM

You’ve got the honors :)

Entelechy on July 11, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Someone mentioned our conservative savior showing up on a white horse to save us… I believe his name is Newt.

RobertCSampson on July 11, 2007 at 2:47 PM

csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 8:45 AM
We know you don’t like him, out of the 292 posts so far on this thread you’ve made 32! Give it a break, we know you hate/despise him! You’ve made your point already!

SSG Fuzzy on July 11, 2007 at 12:34 PM

As the moonbats always say: brevity endless repetition is the soul of wit.

Sure, he’s told you that dozens of times in this thread, and hundreds in other ones in the past few days. But you just don’t understand how really, really REALLY bad Thompson is.

Think about it. Of course we all get sick to death of accidentally hearing the liberal media’s talking points ten times a day – even when we try to avoid it. But you know propagandists couldn’t stay in business in a democracy unless some people actually LIKED that kind of constant re-enforcement.

Look at it from their point of view: that’s the only way they “learn” how to think, so that’s the way they assume other people need to be told what to believe too. So in their own minds, the moonbats don’t think they’re even being obnoxious, let alone compulsively psychotic. They honest-to-God believe they’re doing us a favor.

logis on July 11, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4