Conservative “hunger” for Fred dooms LA Times abortion takedown
posted at 8:51 pm on July 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Dude is bulletproof, reports an exasperated Politico.
The sound of silence tells an interesting tale when it comes to Fred Thompson. A week after reports emerged suggesting that the former Tennessee senator once lobbied for an abortion rights group, few leaders of the GOP’s conservative wing have expressed concern.
In fact, the fallout in conservative circles has largely been confined to defending Thompson and attacking the Los Angeles Times, which broke the story. And this comes, as reported by Politico.com’s Mike Allen, as Thompson has dropped his flat denial of the charge and now instead says he can’t remember.
The muted reaction illuminates a larger point: just how hungry many on the right are for a Thompson candidacy and their inclination to overlook evidence that the soon-to-be candidate may be something less than a true believer…
Asked if he was concerned about the Times report, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and somebody who has extolled Thompson, said, “No, I’m really not.”
“This is becoming so old,” Perkins scoffed. “They find somebody who has staked out a pro-life position, and the first thing they say is that he’s supported a pro-abortion group.”
What’s more, Perkins said, there has been no “indication that it’s getting traction.”
“People are considering the source.”
[Gary] Bauer said much the same thing, pointing out that he had received no phone calls or e-mails of concern. “The leak came from a pro-abortion group,” Bauer noted. “The intention is to torpedo his campaign.”
Follow the link and scroll down for an amusing panicky reaction from the Romney campaign, which really shouldn’t be so eager for the race to boil down to a test of anti-abortion bona fides.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I’m hot for Fred. Who cares if he’s had an abortion in the past? That big bald head works wonders on me!
lorien1973 on July 15, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Next time, they better bring kryptonite.
frankj on July 15, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Maybe if the LA Times spent more time reporting the news instead of being a DNC propaganda outlet, hysterically attacking GOPers who haven’t even entered the race yet (while studiously avoiding any such timed political hit pieces from GOP grassroots supporters on Democrat candidates), it would have a little more “traction.”
9-1, libs. 9-1. Don’t forget it. You’ll never live it down.
The poor Politico is apparently gonna have to accept that Thompson’s gonna throw a monkey wrench into that Hillary-DemCong trifecta you’re trying to usher in.
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Bulletproof? Maybe not. But certainly seen as more representative of conservative views than many of our elected GOP leaders. Lugar, with his recent positions on shamnesty and Iraq, won’t be seeing me voting in his column, as I previously did since his days as mayor in Indy. Sad, he has become.
IrishEyes on July 15, 2007 at 9:13 PM
I like Fred Thompson, but i think the media game here,
as always is to make a story about a Republican candidate,
whether it’s true or not.
Then sit back and watch Republican groups go at it,
and hope the Republican party destroys itself,knowly they
tried every LIBERAL LIE AND TRICK.
American,s are heading into another election cycle,
take a deep breath and don,t allow the DEMOCRATS,
to get away with this crap,or the MEDIA.
canopfor on July 15, 2007 at 9:13 PM
I would be terribly concerned.
amerpundit on July 15, 2007 at 9:14 PM
I agree. I’m not sure that he’s bulletproof, but I’m pretty sure Conservatives simply aren’t listening to the MSM’s attacks on their candidates any more.
amerpundit on July 15, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Yes, exasperated indeed, they’re new and a big old juicy tit-for-tat is good for traffic. Ho-Hum, not this time.
I continue to marvel at just how worried the left is about Fred. He’s smart to be laying back on announcing for as long as he is, it fuels their consternation (and that of his Rep competition as well) and causes them to misstep with their hit pieces/comments due to their angst.
ShoreMark on July 15, 2007 at 9:17 PM
What’s amazing is that the LA Times doesn’t realize how much credibility their attacks on Fred give him.
Go Fred.
BobH on July 15, 2007 at 9:22 PM
This says waaaay more about the LATime’s credibility than it does about conservative reaction to their “story.” Here’s the message, MSM: you done bankrupted your credibility. We’ve moved past “nah nah I’m not listening” to yawning. I know that’s got to hurt. And I’m so happy about it I’m almost giddy.
Furthermore, let’s take the time to notice the liberal tempest over percieved indifference on the part of conservatives to “evidence” regarding a conservative political candidate. For fun, let’s concede that it could even be true, though I think the real dynamic is folks ignoring the LA times en masse. And then let’s revel in the ongoing lack of shame and breathtaking dishonesty, the olympic-level mental gymnastics libs go through to maintain cognotive dissonance while attempting to make a point. Because, you know, the Clintons are squeaky clean. Good theater, that.
TexasDan on July 15, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Abortion is the left’s litmus test, their big gun. It’s here to stay no matter what, there are more important matters facing the country at this point in history, and Conservatives might be realizing that.
What else do the Dems have to stand on? Wouldn’t be just dandy if this time around they were disarmed by abortion being a non-issue in the next presidential election, even among the Republican base?
Liam on July 15, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Look, the LA times is in the information business. Sure, they have their biases, but the goal is money and attention and stories like the abortion lobbying piece bring both. It’s fine to criticize them for transgressions, but the piece you’re all crowing about has turned out, almost certainly, to be true. It seems like the right wing has found its answer to the Daily Kos phenomenon.
Sentiments like this reveal much more about the commenter than about the candidate he supports, and sound more like the Left’s irrational hatred and distrust of all information coming from Fox News than any kind of rational thought.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 9:37 PM
No, the Democrats are in the information business.
Your comment reveals that you know as much about conservatives as you do about media.
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I thought political paranoia was the province of the Left. I was wrong.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Only Chuck Norris can stop him.
Oh wait. Chuck Norris is a Republican. Oh snap.
Ortzinator on July 15, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Here’s the List.
The information business is Democrats. The Democrats are the “information” business.
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 9:43 PM
It seems to me, that Fred! is 10 steps ahead of everyone. All his opponents, and all the bad press, he knows what will happen, they parry, he thrusts.
He is not bulletproof but prepared.
CrimsonFisted on July 15, 2007 at 9:44 PM
When the information is true, you shouldn’t ignore it just because of your political differences with an editor.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Big S –
Take a good long look at the List.
Political paranoia?
Political paranoia is seeing 16 out of 143 major journalists donating to the GOP and screaming that it’s “right-wing” media.
Objective reality is noting that 125 out of 143 journalists giving to Democrats, noting Rasmussen polls underscoring this data and confirming that bias, reading confessions of former journalists attesting to the liberalism of the industry, and concluding that yes, Virginia, there is a liberal bias in the news media.
Got any other data to suggest otherwise? Thanks for playing.
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 9:50 PM
When the information about the opposition is supressed, ignored, downplayed, struck from the publications, etc., then you have a right and a duty to question the political affiliation and opinion of the “objective, disinterested, information-only” editor.
You also just conceded that the media isn’t objective.
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 9:52 PM
The L.A. Times recently called for the resgnation of L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. However, not a peep out of the Times about mayor Tony “Family Man” Villar for a whole week! A whole week!! Could it be that Raza Boy is one of Hillary’s co-chairmen of her campaign? Naw! The Times is a legitimate source of news! BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha
DfDeportation on July 15, 2007 at 9:55 PM
You nailed it TexasDan.
Are you kidding? I guess you haven’t been following the death spiral they are in. I guess you missed how the owners of the LAT had to fire the Editor for insubordination because he was disobeying orders for staff reductions. They owners may care about the money, but the people actually doing the reporting could care less. To paint these people as just capitalists is a joke of monumental proportions!
I guess you also haven’t followed how the LAT changed the published story without any disclosure until they were forced to by bloggers who had captured the original story. But, it’s all just to make money right? Please…
Sell crazy somewhere else. We are all full up here.
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 9:52 PM
I never said they were objective. All I am saying is that each piece of information needs to be assessed independently for truth as well as pertinence to the situation you are considering. If the lobbying story is true (it very likely is), and is pertinent to the candidate’s campaign, there is no use in discarding it just because somebody you don’t like told you.
P.S. Note that the Thompson campaign has given up on contesting the truth of the allegations, and has moved on to asserting that past lobbying efforts don’t matter.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 10:00 PM
True, just not in the way you think.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Romney has now got problems even with New Hampshire and Iowa in the so called bag. He shoudn’t oughta done that to Fred. Fred Thompson is shrewd as a country lawyer. Oh yeah Fred Thompson is a country lawyer. When you get called Southern Fried Reagan by the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention you are ten foot tall and bullet proof. I wonder if Jeri will add a Jungle Room to the White House. Yeah thats the ticket. Mabey change the name to Grace Land or even get a couple lawn jockeys installed.
sonnyspats1 on July 15, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Big S, read the article in the “Sunday afternoon Beeb-bashing” thread for an explanation of why conservatives don’t trust the LA times and other such propaganda outlets. There are a lot of parallels between the UK’s liberal media mess and ours, even if they are not exact.
But what it comes down to is that the topic of the story occurred a long time ago before Fred was in the Senate where he racked up a strong pro-life voting record. Conservatives just aren’t concerned; it doesn’t matter if the story is true or not. What’s the alternative? Rudy? Mitt?
Also, as somebody higher in the thread pointed out, there are more immediate concerns now, such as the survival of western civilization. In my opinion, the second amendment plays an important role in ensuring our survival and way of life, which is one of the reasons that Rudy and Mitt are going to bump their heads into a glass ceiling, if they haven’t already. Of the pro-second amendment candidates, we have Fred and Hunter, and I assume Tancredo, but for now Fred seems like the best hope.
FloatingRock on July 15, 2007 at 10:08 PM
LA Times at bat…2 swings and 2 misses.
SouthernGent on July 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM
I don’t think Romney has any problems. He just gets stronger as he goes. Fred is a lazy-ass, and that makes him NOT presidential material. Besides, Americans will not vote for a bald guy or a chick to be president. I predict Republicans will nominate Romney, Hunter, or Tancredo! We’ll see.
DfDeportation on July 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Notice that I didn’t question the veracity of the story’s facts.
I questioned the timing (making me the ultimate Olbermann-like patriot), the target, and the frequency in the hits.
Inaccuracy is not the only type of bias, dontchaknow.
The LAT downplaying a Hillary campaign co-chair (Antonio Villaraigosa) embroiled in a sex scandal with a reporter for a week instead of releasing daily assaults on the politician and his highly-connected national politicos (Hillary) is the counter example. Compare that to the recent string of preemptive anti-Fred pieces.
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 10:12 PM
I’m not as concerned about Fred being considered bullet-proof as much as I’m exalted that about this being a positive sign that there is a serious chink in the MSM’s armor and it’s domination on people’s opinions.
Egfrow on July 15, 2007 at 10:14 PM
I prefer to have as much good information as possible, as soon as possible, regardless of the source.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Big S, which candidate do you currently support? Is being pro-life and important consideration to you?
FloatingRock on July 15, 2007 at 10:18 PM
In the information of prompt information, as much as possible, maybe Big S should let everyone know where he/she is coming from.
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Interest, not information. PIMF.
Good Lt on July 15, 2007 at 10:23 PM
I prefer to have as much good information as possible, as soon as possible, regardless of the source.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Don’t mention it my friend. Read it all if your serious about the MSM. Its called propaganda or yellow journalism. If you have a moral compass it should speak volumes.
sonnyspats1 on July 15, 2007 at 10:24 PM
So Romney has a “social conservative outreach director” sending out “blast e-mails” and working in conjunction with the LA Times on this hit piece.
Thompson’s response was basically, “Pfff… Whatever.”
And he is WINNING the PR battle. That should tell you something.
logis on July 15, 2007 at 10:26 PM
It’s an observation .
Only someone with the non-Conservative mindset of the LA Times would call it an irrational “sentiment”.
BobH on July 15, 2007 at 10:26 PM
You mean once you independently verify each claim in each story as you suggested earlier right?
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 10:28 PM
“good information regardless of the source + LAT = oxymoron
serenity on July 15, 2007 at 10:32 PM
If he swears to fight Islamofascism seriously, and to its global defeat, Fred can have a host of minor peccadillos -or even armadillos- and I wouldn’t care.
In medicine you have triage.
The more serious battle is for our national -and Civilizational- survival.
The small, homegrown problem we can take care of once we overcome the cancerously-spreading jihadists.
[Who can spell -or pronounce- "metastasizing"?]
Any but surrenderologists!
profitsbeard on July 15, 2007 at 10:34 PM
In the long run, this is even more important than any single election. Every time this happens, a few hundred thousand more people realize how idiotic it is to blindly accept all information sources as equally reliable.
George Bush is, with all due respect, a fool. Trying to compromise with these people achieves nothing. The liberals pegged their propaganda dial a very long time ago. No matter what any “moderate” conservative does to appease them, they will say absolutely everything they think they can get away with against us.
Every time we goad them past that point – into revealing their madness – only good can come of that.
logis on July 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM
That’s why I’m starting to think the person who has the best shot to actually fight Islamofascism would be Rudy because the Left couldn’t really attack him on the social issues (which is the real reason the Left so hates Bush) and the Right would stick with him in the fight. He might need a little external help to get the nomination though. The Right would have to want a warrior regardless of the the social issue – Just thinking out loud…
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Man, he never learned that lesson. All it got him was grief and the loss of respect from his base. David Limbaugh nailed it a few weeks ago when he said:
TheBigOldDog on July 15, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Gee no kidding, especially since they embargoed the hot story surrounding their very own mayor who happens to be a democrat.
Topsecretk9 on July 15, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Right now, I like Giuliani (but that could change.) Issues like abortion don’t concern me as much as others, although I do have very detailed positions on them. My first priorities are strength in the international arena and economic liberty here in the USA. Frankly, the economic issues (and there are many) concern me more than even the war on terror (I HATE that term!) Whoever is elected in 2008 (aside from Paul, Gravel and Kucinich) is unlikely to accept defeat happily, since the war will then no longer be “Bush’s war” but their own, and they’ll have to face the American people on it. However, the trend towards collectivist thinking in the major Democratic candidates, as well as the Democratic congress, scares me, and I think we need a President who can counter the call to socialism with inventive and workable free-market methods, while builing a smaller but stronger social “safety net” for those with absolutely no other hope.
The Thompson abortion stuff doesn’t actually bother me, aside from the efforts of the campaign to weasel out of it, and the most recent excuse that basically boils down to “I’m a lawyer and did it for the money, so don’t hold my any of my clients’ actions against me.” Fred’s in my top three or four choices among the candidates currently running, and I wouldn’t be upset to have him as President, although I don’t think he’d be as effective as some of the others (I understand that that’s a selling point for some.) My concerns are with electability in the general election, and that the nomination of an establishment Republican candidate is just asking for defeat. Also, the development of a cult of personality around the candidate, as has happened with Fred, worries me, since no criticism is even considered, weakening the candidate.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Conspiracy theory time….
Maybe someone from his camp hinted to the press this on purpose, to see what the reaction would be. He is postponing his announcement…why?
Test the waters before you swim.
lsutiger on July 15, 2007 at 10:55 PM
I call BS. I mean Big S.
Hehold! our newest
trollpiñata.RushBaby on July 15, 2007 at 10:56 PM
I think this misguided nonsense is where most of Giuliani’s support comes from. George Bush “compromised” on several social issues, and it got him exactly ZERO respect from the left. Doubling that won’t help a damned thing.
The media have not been telling us that Giuliani is our “front runner” since two years before the election because they think he can beat the Democrats. That is not their goal.
Take whatever Giuliani’s nationwide support is right now and subtract 15 points – ’cause that’s what it would be the day after he won the Republican Primary and the media suddenly pulled the rug out from under him.
logis on July 15, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Agreed, The communists depend on tactic as their primary method of political gains. They keep moving the goal posts further towards their aim and while they keep on making further irrational demands until another compromise eventual reached. They keep asking for 4 inches and we keep giving them 2.
Egfrow on July 15, 2007 at 11:07 PM
It’s not just respect; it’s called support. The minute the polls closed in November of 2006, George Bush lost his usefulness to the conservative cause. He was left with the “goodwill” he’d built up with the left, and with the moderate Republicans.
How’s that working out for him?
We held our noses for 6 years to back Bush when we agreed with about half of what he did. And we are SICK of that. Give us an unabashed and unapologetic conservative to support, and you’ll see another two Reagan landslides followed by another two decades of defending him from liberal slander.
Which is why I have a little trouble understanding why people assume that another Rockefeller Republican like Giuliani is the Republican Party’s best hope for ‘08.
logis on July 15, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Wow…sounds like Romney is as inept as Hillary regarding healthcare…of course he’s not getting attacked because the liberal msm knows there’s no way he’ll win the nomination…
DCJeff on July 15, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I have a feeling that if Fred get’s the Nomination that Duncan Hunter stands a good chance at VP.
Egfrow on July 15, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I like Hunter. Been my choice all along. No big mo though
PowWow on July 15, 2007 at 11:19 PM
VP would be good, a fine candidate in 16, wow that’s a long way off
PowWow on July 15, 2007 at 11:20 PM
I think Hunter’s a good guy, but the Left will try to paint him as another Cheney (another good guy), to scare off independent voters. They may very well succeed.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM
…And I’ll show you a person who will be painted as a “far right winger”, out of touch with “mainstream” America and who will take food from the mouths of babies, withhold your gramdma’s medicine cause she can’t afford it, get in bed with “big oil”, and set back women’s and minorities rights to the dark ages.
Sadly enough, a true conservative is unelectable now.
BacaDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM,
I think the left knew Cheney was Cheney in 2004. That still didn’t stop his re-election. So to compare Duncan to Cheney is probably of no consequence.
Egfrow on July 15, 2007 at 11:29 PM
I agree.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 11:31 PM
The most telling part of all this is we finally have freddie boy nuancing his positions because he got out on a limb, flat out denying this, and now he’s flip-flopping on it. This will come back on him at a later date and people will be saying, that as far back as July, the evidence of freds? lies and fakery were present.
Since fred? is too cowardly to debate honestly, then he will be treated like wise.
It has never been about abortion. It has always been about his lying.
csdeven on July 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM
…and don’t forget racist and radical Christian…
DCJeff on July 15, 2007 at 11:39 PM
The “head fake” on the announcement worked great. They’ve tipped their hand and they’ve got nothin’. …..hmm…I think I’ve said that before.
TBinSTL on July 15, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Egfrow on July 15, 2007 at 11:29 PM
I think a Thompson-Hunter ticket in 2008 is about as close to Bush-Cheney redux as we can get with the current candidates. I don’t think the country has much of an appetite for that.
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 11:44 PM
But only someone who is strongly conservative will be able to get out the vote. A moderate Republican is not going to get the strong support of those “broken glass” conservatives who helped Pres. Bush win two elections. They may still vote themselves but they probably would not put as much effort into “getting out the vote”.
Rose on July 15, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Yep. That’s a given.
So, like it or not, we’re stuck with Fred, Mitt, Rudy, etc.
BacaDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I think Mr. Thompson is seen as conservative enough to get the conservatives behind him. We are already seeing that.
Rose on July 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM
If fred? gets the nomination, he will lose in the general. He is soaking up this pseudo-support as if he is competing on a level playing field.
Just look, as you have pointed out, the first time he has to answer a serious challenge, he first denies it. Then says he can’t remember it. Now he’s justifying it. This is, has been, and will be freds? MO through the entire primary season.
No, the independents will skewer freddie boy for his arm-twisting lobbyist past, his lying, his fakeries, and his general inabilities to compete for the job. The indies are not the desperate to elect a TV star who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk.
csdeven on July 15, 2007 at 11:52 PM
BigOldDog-
I like Tancredo/Hunter(their chances, so far, are slim to none), but would take anyone …Fred, Rudy, or Romney… over the crapulous, pinheaded defeatocrats.
I know the importance of fielding a potent enough candidate to crush Hillary/Edwards/Obama, and stop their suicidally-incomprehensible undermining of America/coddling of Terrorists.
It’s still way early to decide.
But it’s nice to have some decent choices.
Bush vs McCain was hardly inspiring.
Bush vs Kerry, dull. (GWB’s Religion of Peace & free Medicare drugs bonanza, et al, were hardly motivating, although you gotta vote).
2008:
Anybody For Our Nation’s Strength vs the Squalid Losercrats, will be a relief.
profitsbeard on July 15, 2007 at 11:54 PM
I love it. The left understands conservatives as well as they understand islamofascists. It has never occurred to them that abortion just isn’t the hill many of us are willing to die on in this, or perhaps any other, election. Listen carefully LAT, regardless of the accuracy of your story on Thompson’s history regarding abortion, it is meaningless to me because abortion is not an issue I am concerned about for this election. I am concerned about myself or my children or my grandchildren having to fight islamoterrorists in our streets or that the citizenry will have to refight the Mexican War because the gov’t has abdicated it’s responsibility to secure our borders and defend this nation. I am concerned that the left hates George Bush more than they love this nation and their freedoms. I am concerned that many Americans are more worried about personal security provided by the gov’t than about personal responsibility and freedom. I am concerned that continued confiscatory tax rates are going to drive even more significant portions of our businesses out of this country and destroy our standard of living. I am concerned that I am going to get poor health care if we are forced into a socialized medicine system. I am concerned that the welfare state continues to expand in hidden programs and that a near majority of Americans think they are entitled to being supported in some manner by the rest of us. I am concerned that the gov’t is going to try to seize my firearms or restrict my access to ammunition thereby removing my ability to defend myself. I am concerned about the continued erosion of State’s Rights. I am concerned that retiring SCOTUS members will be replaced by non-constitutionalist jurists. I am concerned that political correctness has ruined our educational system and that our children are cheated of critical thinking skills and the knowledge of history, social studies and civics required to make them functional citizens in our Republic. I am concerned about many things far and before any candidate’s stance on abortion. If the other concerns are not appropriately addressed, abortion will be a non-issue when the United States is a socialist dictatorship, declining into a third world country, or the citizens are fighting a brutal war on our own soil.
deepdiver on July 15, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Another example of sheeple, doing the opposite of something because they don’t like the source of the report, instead of studying the ACTUAL FACTS and making a OH MY GOSH!!….an INFORMED DECISION?!
This kind of logic is so flawed it’s hard to take it seriously.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 12:04 AM
I know. I’m one of them. :)
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Would you be concerned if the non-candidate continued to lie about his past positions and tries to pretend he was something he wasn’t?
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Big S on July 15, 2007 at 11:44 PM,
If the election were held today, I currently still feel Gulliani is the most electable right now. There is no Fred campaign yet. Until he’s out and about and running his game, I can’t consider him at all. The proof is in the pudding with Fred. He’s campaign has to start.
Egfrow on July 16, 2007 at 12:06 AM
EXACTLY! I realized a long time ago that my view of the world didn’t apply universally to everyone in my particular group. IE…conservatism
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 12:07 AM
cont….
fred? thompson is basically…..
A bumper sticker
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 12:12 AM
If a news source is know for its bias than why even consider them as a news source? Even if they get it right once in a while why bother if it means you have to check the story with other stories to see if it is true or not? Better to wait and see if a more reputable source of news picks it up.
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 12:19 AM
For now, but that may change. We’ve yet to hear much from him. He’ll have to run an ideas campaign instead of a record campaign, since his record as an elected official is fairly thin. My main concern is that he auditioning for the role of the reliable conservative choice, which is not a very good position to be in electorally. It’s obvious that his support comes from the right wing of the Republican party, who are looking for a Southern Republican establishment candidate.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Yes I would. However, I don’t remember everything I said, did or positioned on 10, 15, 20 years ago and don’t expect a politician to either. More than once in my life someone has stated that I said or did something previously and I have denied it only to be shown proof that I indeed said or did such a thing. The only possible response to that is, “Oh, I guess I did after all. I didn’t remember that until you showed me that proof.” The human memory is imperfect to say the least. Until I am shown that someone is a liar by patterns of behavior rather than misremembering a particular instance of something I’ll withhold judgment.
I currently like Thompson better than the other options, however, we are still 16 months out from the election and he hasn’t even formally announced yet. He hasn’t debated current issues yet with other candidates. There are a lot of things I still have to learn about all the candidates before I make up my mind about my primary vote. The only fairly firm position I have at the moment is that thus far I do not like Guiliani and would have a hard time voting for him. That could change.
The comments in my above rather lengthy post would apply to any candidate the MSM attempts to take pot shots at to divide the conservative constituency. It just so happens that this particular thread is about a shot at Thompson.
deepdiver on July 16, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Why blindly trust any news source? I say study everything you can to make an informed decision.
This story about fred? obviously has legs or fred? would not have flip-flopped on his defense of it. So, the LAT did get it right, but people want to be pissed because of the source?
Sorry, that don’t fly with conservative ideals. Truth is trtuh regardless of the source.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Sorry, don’t agree. I don’t even bother reading the LA times and I live an hour from LA.
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 12:29 AM
On election day, 2008, I’m gonna pull the “R” lever. Not because I know I’ll be in agreement with every position of the candidate, but because the alternative is terrifying.
If a pro-life position is the sole vote getter for someone, then go ahead and stay home. You’ll pay for such a narrow vision by paying higher taxes and better get used to learning all the nuances of the “It Takes a Village” bullshit.
BacaDog on July 16, 2007 at 12:34 AM
But I didn’t say I truth isn’t truth what I said is why even bother reading it in the first place when you know they have an agenda? Why not wait and see if a news source you do trust picks it up to even consider it?
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 12:35 AM
He’s obviously not bullet-proof, but he’ll do some damage!!!
congsan on July 16, 2007 at 12:44 AM
csdeven is right. I can’t stand Mitt, because he is not capable of a principled stand. How convenient that he was Pro-Coice all those years he was running in Mass., but is Pro-Life just as he starts a bid for the Rep. Candidacy. Same with Fred. It is not so much his position or prior positions, but his disingenuousness about what his position is or was. I’m left wondering what to believe.
tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 12:55 AM
I don’t think Fred can win Ohio, even if he declares and wins the nomination. So goes the election.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-luntz15jul15,0,387529.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Bradky on July 16, 2007 at 12:57 AM
The article seems to point more towards Mr. Thompson than away from him.
Also, I always have a problem with the “is the country heading in the right direction” question. If I were asked that I would say no because of the illegal immigration problem and because of our increasingly morally depraved culture. But that doesn’t mean I would even consider voting for a democrat.
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 1:08 AM
Sadly enough, a true conservative is unelectable now.
BacaDog on July 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I disagree. The tsunami over the shamnesty bill shows that there is still fire in the belly of the USA! We will quit the gloom and doom and get out the vote to support our candidate who ever he might be.
sonnyspats1 on July 16, 2007 at 1:12 AM
There’s not a thing in the world wrong with bias. Every journalist who reports on anything having to do with politics always has an axe to grind. It’s always going to be that way – as well it should.
The problem is that the vast majority of liberal journalists CONSTANTLY LIE about their bias. Most people who watch that crap just don’t expend the two or three seconds it would take to figure that out. The rest actually like it that way – they figure that means the liberal media have gotten all their deception out of their systems.
…and they squint their eyes at conservatives and go over everything we say with a microscope – figuring that, since we tell exactly what our beliefs are up front, we must be lying about everything else.
logis on July 16, 2007 at 1:16 AM
deepdiver-
And that goes double for me.
First preserve the country, then worry about the minor details.
profitsbeard on July 16, 2007 at 1:18 AM
People are going to believe the reports that support their ideas, and discredit the reports that don’t. It’s human nature. The question isn’t really if you believe the Times report, but rather, do you care?
No offense intended, but in today’s world, if your biggest concern is if some woman you’ll never know is having an abortion, you are wearing blinders.
It’s obvious the Times and other liberal media are trying to assign the priorities for conservatives. They are all but telling us, “You will vote for Rudy! Rudy is your choice!” and “Fred is bad, very very bad!” Are we as conservatives going to follow their itinerary? Or are we going to decide for ourselves what is important?
speed911 on July 16, 2007 at 1:24 AM
I want to like Fred, but I still dont know enough about him, and he hasnt gotten off the pot and into the race yet.
Kinda O/T
csdevon, kindly thank your soldiers for thier service for me, and let em know my prayers are with them.
mrfixit on July 16, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Don’t count on it.
I’m an independent. Before 9/11 I considered myself moderate, but after seeing Bush’s presidency I call myself conservative. I didn’t vote for Bush because I’ve ALWAYS thought he was an idiot, and nothing has ever disabused me of that notion.
Fred is awesome! I’m waiting to see him in action before I commit, but if he runs and turns out like I expect, he will be the first politician that I will actually vote “for” rather than against.
I remember how disappointed I was when he announced that he was leaving congress to pursue acting. Back at the time he was one of only a few politicians that I actually trusted even though I didn’t agree with him on every issue.
FloatingRock on July 16, 2007 at 2:14 AM
I’m with you there. There’s something about Rudy that I just don’t like. I won’t try to put a name to it, (because Rudy fans might hate me), but it’s not only his stance on various issues that are important to me, it’s his character that I don’t like. I just don’t like Rudy. If he wanted to be my friend, I would politely decline.
Mitt isn’t bad, I could vote for him if he was the nominee, I think.
I do like Tancredo and Hunter, although I would need to know more about them before I would commit to either as president. As VP’s I think either would be great.
FloatingRock on July 16, 2007 at 2:36 AM
Living in Minneapolis (Home the Red Star & Tribune) I can sympathize with a town that must read democRATic talking points on a daily basis. I stopped years ago! I get my news from trusted sources on the internet now.
sabbott on July 16, 2007 at 3:26 AM
deep diver,
I agree wholeheartedly, if the country is not safe, if we are not safe, all other issues are secondary. I am bewildered (and frightened) by the blindness of the left, how can they continue to deny that there are people (I use the term loosely) that want to kill us regardless of our politics, race or religion?
Until the other half of the population takes their collective heads out of the sand and sees what is really happening in this country, as well as Europe, I think we are all on a fast train to Hell.
the witch on July 16, 2007 at 7:10 AM
Big S and others seem to think you should look at every news story and analyze them for truth and content.
Obviously Big S has not been exposed to the LAT. They, like most progaganda machines, throw out a vast amount of stories and hit pieces on conservatives. Relying on us to sort them out. One story may stick, and that is the one they ride. The others, when called out on accuracy, point to the one that may be accurate, rarely if other setting the record straight (and if they do it is section B page 16). Most of Freds critics fall into that category, taking many examples, and finding one. I will assure you, everyone who has made many decisions in life, have made more than a few errors. And most of us have changed postitions in life, if I found that one position that you (generic you) made, I could hammer you for weeks with inuendos, accusations, tying you to straw men, etc. Listen to Geraldo calling Michelle an “anti-immigrant” and you get the picture. Many people think Michell is anti-immigrant, and that quote will be used now that Geraldo has labeled her. Always stating “she has been referred to as…”. You guys don’t get it, if it wasn’t Fred, it would be the other leader. They pick them off, one at a time, and you guys fall for it…every single time.
If it is accurate we have to pay attention to it, baloney. Consider the source and the reason for the exposure. What ”
horsepower” does it have. As these allegations surface, does our candidate need to address each one? There are going to be hundreds. And if our candidate defeats each one, what do they gain? Big S or CS won’t vote for them, they are too busy picking up the scraps from the LAT table.
The strategy is to keep the conservative off balance, on the defense. That is what the LAT and NYT, and others will do for the several months. Our candidates will be tied up asnwerering every “true” allegation.
When a liar speaks, don’t listen. And the LAT has proved time and time again that they are one of the least trusted newspapers in America.
When an enemy of mine sits down and gives me advice and information, I take it for what it is worth….it is designed to destroy me.
right2bright on July 16, 2007 at 8:16 AM
Bottom line…do not believe much of anything you read in any newspaper. The fact that the Dums are this frightened of Fred tells me all I need to know.
lynnv on July 16, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Yes, you may disagree, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that the LAT ran a story, that fred? has now flipped on, 2 different times and had three different positions.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:24 AM
Without a doubt, the most important aspect of this story. Naturally, the LA Times and SF Chronicle will fall first. But we may have reached a tipping point. Want to see a tidal wave engulf Manhattan? Wait til the NY Times slides under the waves. It may not be today, but it will be tomorrow.
JiangxiDad on July 16, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Yes, sheeple do. Informed adults get educated and make informed decisions. This is why I don’t buy the fred? poll numbers as valid, solid support. No person can truly make a real decision if they don’t have as much information as possible. With fred? being too scared to debate anyone, no one really knows what his positions will be, how realistic they are, and how he plans on implementing them. So, those who are blindly supporting him are not making informed decisions. They are making half-a$$ed decisions based on happy talk and emotions.
The minute the facts start coming out about fred?, he will start losing support. This LAT article is a perfect example. It is clear the issue is not abortion, it’s truth telling, because fred? has held three diferent positions over the last week. Now, those who are still ignoring the truth aspect of this, and are focusing on the abortion issue, have obviously not had their eyes opened yet. But that doesn’t mean there has not been a portion of undecideds etc who have been enlightened and are now looking deeper into freds? checkered past of lying and fakeries.
Yes. and the only way to make an informed conservative decision is to consider all information and vet it against the truth. We aren’t the dems. The dems don’t debate on Fox because it is Fox. That makes as much sense as a rep ignoring any story from a liberal paper. Truth is truth.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:41 AM
I will and thank you.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:42 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »