Fred and CFR: A real problem for conservatives?
posted at 2:57 pm on July 16, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If we’re considering the source, and we always ought to do that, it’s the conservative Washington Times, not the unbalanced and often fact-free LA Times. The story brings up Sen. Fred Thompson’s role in campaign finance reform, which I mentioned a while back as being a potential thorn in Fred’s side.
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is now hovering near the top of the heap of Republican presidential hopefuls in most polls, but critics say he will begin a precipitous descent when more primary voters learn more about his record.
“I think Thompson already has peaked, especially because people are being reminded of his deep involvement in supporting McCain-Feingold,” said James Bopp Jr., a Republican lawyer who specializes in campaign and election law.
“His McCain-Feingold problem is worse than just the law,” said Mr. Bopp, a supporter of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Mr. Thompson also “signed a subpoena that cost the Republican National Committee millions of dollars to comply with, and his name is on an amicus brief” defending the 2002 campaign-finance law, Mr. Bopp said.
Amicus brief? That’s quite a bit different than giving minimal effort on a colleague’s case, and in this case it is part of a record that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny very well.
Mr. Thompson’s Governmental Affairs Committee hearings were convened in 1997 to investigate foreign contributions to the Democratic campaign that were clearly illegal under federal law. The hearings instead ended up treating legal Republican donations as part of a bipartisan scandal, a perception eventually used to justify the 2002 law best known by the name of its Senate sponsors, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat
“He subpoenaed a number of conservative issue organizations — he wanted to be even-handed after issuing subpoenas to a number of left-leaning groups and unions,” said elections-law attroney Cleta Mitchell, who advises conservative clients.
“He shouldn’t have subpoenaed any of the citizens groups in the first place,” she said. “He should have concentrated on the illegal activities of the Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee in the 1996 election. … Instead, Thompson let the Democrats on his committee run roughshod over him and the only thing that came out of the entire effort was the record the Supreme Court used to validate McCain-Feingold.”
Mr. Thompson’s vulnerability to charges of campaign-finance hypocrisy was highlighted over the weekend, when ABC News ran an online “analysis” accusing the Republican of taking advantage of “loopholes” in federal law to avoid reporting his fundraising amounts, as other candidates were required to do by midnight Sunday.
Thompson’s look into Clinton’s 1996 campaign finance was a counterproductive flop that ended up handing the issue over to the Democrats. It never got to the bottom of all those contributions that Clinton, who was desperate for campaign cash in late 1995 and early to mid 1996, obtained from Chinese sources who eventually fled the country. Thompson won’t be running on CFR to win the GOP primary, but he ought to answer both for the 1997 investigation and for that amicus brief he signed supporting McCain-Feingold. Conservatives need to take the blinders off. As one fellow traveler put it to me earlier today, the last thing we need is to support and elect another disappointment who turns out to be a lot less conservative than implied. Eight years of that, plus the earlier four with Bush 41, are quite enough, thankyouverymuch.
I’m not saying that that’s the case with Fred. But we don’t know that it’s not.
Update: Here’s the amicus brief in all its bipartisan glory. Some parts will be hard to digest.
He co-sponsored that atrocity along with Mr. Maverick himself. Lovely.
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 »
If Fred’s taking shots in the back, he must be in front.
TunaTalon on July 16, 2007 at 3:01 PM
I think its a “hit piece” because the “moderate” Republicans wont control Fred so they must help destroy his credibility to get a Mcflunky or socializt Rudy in power.
palefaced on July 16, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Compared to who? And that is the problem, isn’t it?
tarpon on July 16, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Yep. As scandals go, I prefer them like this.
So, let me get this straight, he punched a lot of politicians in the nose? Good for him.
I hope he continues to hand down spankings to all parts of the political spectrum. This country needs a good culling in D.C.
The more anti-Fred! the stories are, the more pro-Fred! the polls will become. Look that good at 900 years, you will not.
unamused on July 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Fred is toast. The media will burn him.
BJ* on July 16, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I’m not going to lose any sleep over this one while looking forward to tomorrow’s Rasmussen poll results and Johnny Walnuts dropping out.
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 16, 2007 at 3:12 PM
I think you guys are misreading this. Thompson has been consistently on the wrong side of CFR, or at least he was when it was a hot issue. He didn’t hit any politicians in the nose–by supporting CFR he empowered incumbency and supported the squelching of political speech. Conservatives have rightly derided McCain for his role in all that, and have rightly slammed President Bush for signing McCain-Feingold into law. Why should Fred get a pass on this?
None of this constitutes a deal-breaker for me even though I always thought McCain-Feingold was awful and unconstitutional, but it’s part of his record and ought to be taken into consideration.
Bryan on July 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM
unamused on July 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Actually, it sounds like he went out of his way NOT to “punch politicians in the nose” during his time in the Seante, to the extent that he bears a great deal of responsibility for the current political culture that relies on McCain-Feingold.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM
I’m relieved to find out he wasn’t involved with the Code of Federal Regulations.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM
If I were to ask my mom, or my cousin, or my sister if they know what McCain Feingold was they wouldn’t know and if I explained it they would say oh, that’s what it is. Mr. Thompson has already said it hasn’t worked as intended and perhaps should be relooked at. I have a hard time seeing this as an issue with people who are not political “junkies”. Most people can’t even afford to give a candidate the limited amount. I’m not supporting it, I think it’s bad, but I just don’t think it will register with people concerned about terrorism and parental rights and religious freedom.
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Bryan on July 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Southern Accent. That’s all it really is.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM
The average voter does not hold a position on McCain-Feingold, but many more watch Law And Order and DieHard 2. Get with it. Very few Americans are poli-ti-junkies. CFR is trash and a slap to the framers of the Constitution. But, the average joe has no clue. That’s reality.
Fred! and his running mate, Rudi, will be focusing on Iraq and homeland security for ‘08—not McFain–Caingold.
saved on July 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM
I think does need to answer to the issue. Hindsight being what it is everybody now knows the CFR legislation was a big bust. As far as his actions it sounds like it is once again a conservative underestimating the rabid political nature of the Dems and liberals in general. I keep hearing the refrain from the song “Backstabbers” in my mind. It is exactly this “reaching across the aisle” mentality that dealt a serious blow to McCains campaign, along with his amnesty stance. The only reason for reaching across the aisle is to pull them in closer for a good punch in the nose.
LakeRuins on July 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Yeah, I first noticed Fred! when he was in the Senate. This was his low point. Recently he said something like “events have overtaken McCain/Feingold” or some such nonsense. At some point he needs to come forward with a thorough explanation of what he was trying to accomplish, why he chose to address the issue in that manner, and, now that the bill has been on the books for a while, what, if anything, is he going to do about it.
This issue is not make-or-break for me, but it’s troubling.
Used my daily quota of commas.
jaime on July 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I’ll wait for his response… which I’m sure will be coming in a day or so to see what he thinks now…
Romeo13 on July 16, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Yep, because no matter what always give your own party a pass while trying to screw the opposition.
The supposed difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are supposed to be the fair honest and ethical ones.
Fred has a reputation for going after corruption and letting the chips fall where they may, personally until I see something different I’m ok with that. As far as I am concerned nobody gets a free pass because of party affiliation.
This article makes it look as if Fred was providing cover for the Clinton’s, the Wikipedia stub on this event is pretty clear that the Clinton people obstructed the investigation by either pleading the 5th or fleeing the country. It’s pretty damn hard to conduct an investigation when everybody involved either 5th’s up or flee’s the country.
doriangrey on July 16, 2007 at 3:19 PM
This is my one sticking point with Fred, other than he won’t declare already and I’m getting tired of waiting.
That said, Rudy and Romney have issues too, and I’ll go with Rudy before Romney. Fred is nominally my first choice, but Rudy is my fallback.
Bad Candy on July 16, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I saw you identify pro-life as a big issue for you on another thread. If this is the case, you should know that one of the groups who took Thompson to task on this more than any other was the National Right to Life. They claimed that this law prevented their advocacy and was an assault on free speech.
Given how hard they fought against this when it was up for passage, I expect them to be very vocal about this during the election. That will register.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 3:24 PM
“Conservatives need to take the blinders off.” – exactly, Bryan. The amount of wishful thinking pouring into the Fred! thing has reminded me more of the way Democrats operate than anything else. Fredmania is quite obviously a reaction to the percieved flaws of the other candidates more than a genuine belief and enthusiasm for the man who, as keeps coming out, we know less about than many would like to think.
I think he’d be a good candidate nevertheless, but to place him head and shoulders above Rudy or Romney is neither objective nor realistic. And his coyness about running is getting to be quite irritating, and perhaps a sign of another flaw…
Halley on July 16, 2007 at 3:25 PM
McCain-Feingold-Soros is terrible law. If he issues a “boy, was that a mistake,” that will help his Fred! quotient. But if it’s more “events have overtaken,” that will be more like a Fred:( quotient.
eeyore on July 16, 2007 at 3:27 PM
So true, so true. Start talking about “Amicus Briefs” in public, and people will either doze off or start backing away slowly.
That being said, we who are political junkies had better practise what we preach and unwrap this one regardless of how much we might not want to.
RushBaby on July 16, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Being pro-life is an issue. But it is not the only one. I am not a one issue voter. The only thing that a president could do is send the issue back to the states by nominating pro-life judges. It will never be eliminated from our culture. I was using that issue as an example in the other thread because that is what the LA times piece was attacking him on. If the pro-life groups see him as their best choice even if he isn’t perfect they will not use this.
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Completely agree, Thompson at least has said it didn’t work and semi-apologized!
Exactly! He has also come out very strongly against the Fairness Doctrine, which is a good sign! Haven’t seen many of the other candidates speak against it yet!
SSG Fuzzy on July 16, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Fred and CFR: A real problem for conservatives?
When I read this, my ears pricked up. You mean the Council on Foreign Relations?; which pops up in every conspiracy theory from the price of beet sugar, to the Illuminati. Oh, Campaign Finance Reform. phewww!
captivated_dem on July 16, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Meant to add, McCain has never come even close to that and has actually spoken even stronger against free speech! Which is probably most of us will never trust him!
SSG Fuzzy on July 16, 2007 at 3:37 PM
He shouldn’t, but he will. There are some who believe that all we have to do is nominate Fred, and he’ll crush Hillary.
Newsflash: This just in to the studio. Realty’s on the phone, and it says it ain’t gonna happen.
The problem is, many Fred heads are looking for flaws in the other candidates, while ignoring those same ones in Fred. Yes, Fred speaks well.
Yes, he’s a brilliant communicator. But, as I’ve said, he’s no Reagan. Reagan was a Great Communicator, but an equally intelligent and witty man. He also stood up well in confrontation, and could even make his opponent laugh (see age joke).
Fred may be able to do those same things, but we can’t know, because he hasn’t even taken part in a debate. Heck, he hasn’t even declared. Yet, for some reason, many Fred heads think they know enough about him to vote him in as the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and Leader of the Free World. Why? Because the guy can release a few audio recordings and speak in front of fellow Conservatives.
amerpundit on July 16, 2007 at 3:41 PM
The thing is that conservatives might consider things like this, be less than pleased about it, and still go with Fred because he still looks to be the most conservative of the top-tier candidates that have a chance against Hillary. I mean, what’s a conservative gonna do? Say, “Fred’s not conservative enough for me, so I’m gonna vote for Rudy”? That’s counterintuitive since Rudy’s clearly the most liberal of the Republican candidates. Mitt doesn’t give off that genuine deep-seated conservative vibe, either. If you want a fire-breathing conservative movement leader, then perhaps one of the third-tier guys without a real chance is your guy. Or Newt, and even his greatest fans (and I’m one) acknowledge that his negative polling numbers make his chances pretty slim.
For myself, though I’m ultraconservative, I’m still leaning toward Rudy because I think he’s our best chance to attract enough moderate voters to keep Hillary out of the White House. But I don’t think Fred is going to have this precipitous decline so many are predicting when his record is put under deeper scrutiny. He’s still clearly the most conservative one in the race with an actual chance at the nomination. If Fred becomes our nominee, it is well within my comfort zone to vote for him.
aero on July 16, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Let’s take a quick poll… Identify who said this:
“This amicus brief seeks to show that the Report’s findings on campaign finance abuses in the 1996 election provided Congress with an overwhelming factual basis for concluding with the BCRA reforms are necessary…”
Uh-huh… Now, who said this:
“The average Ruskie don’t take a dump without a plan. So what’s your plan?”
That kinda looks like what’s happening right now.
If it is a scandal for Fred! to have supported an unpopular campaign finance reform bill in the past, it is only scandalous to a minority of hardcore righty policy wonks. This isn’t a “while a partner of the powerful Rose Law firm, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton blatantly thumbed her nose at critics and ethics watchdogs by securing numerous profitable government contracts with her husband’s offices as the attorney general and then as governor of the State of Arkansas”-type scandal.
ScottMcC on July 16, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I hope my last post wasn’t misleading. I think abortion is barbaric and would like to see it end. I just don’t think that it is the only issue in this campaign. Religious freedom is being stripped from our culture as are our rights as parents as to what our kids are taught. And also the fight against terror. These are also important. It all comes down to judges who will let us fight the terrorists and let us keep our religious freedom and to at least restrict abortion as much as possible. Who do we trust on the judge issue?
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Look! Breasts!
km on July 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I agree that it’s not a “scandal” in the traditional sense, but it’s not those kind of scandals I’m worried about. Politicians who engage in criminal or borderline criminal behavior are likely to be exposed and pay the price. It’s what he did in the Senate with respect to CFR, believing that it was fully legal, constitutional, and a good idea, that worries me.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Mitt Romney and John McCain.
amerpundit on July 16, 2007 at 3:51 PM
no executive experience
voted to repeal 1st amendment
“can’t remember” if he was pro-choice
Sure… I’ll vote for him, maybe.
aero is right, as a conservative Fred just isn’t quite there, but to middle America he’s too conservative to win without a serious and successful executive background.
pedestrian on July 16, 2007 at 3:54 PM
This isn’t really a del-breaker for me, but it sure does make me wonder why the daily hit pieces on Fred!
Yeah, I’m concerned, but I’ll wait till I see him in the race and going head-to-head with the other candidates.
jdawg on July 16, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Fred has been quite compelling on constructionist judges.
O/T
Am I slow on the uptake or did a bunch of new style buttons just show up?
RushBaby on July 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Fair question. The only time I saw this addressed at the debates was with the Roe v Wade issue, almost all the Republicans said they wanted judges who would overturn it. I was surprised at how Rudy answered this, but at least he was honest. Fred. I’ll hold off until he decides to debate.
As far as relgious freedom, I think the guy who many feel is in a cult would be as sensitive to religious freedom as anyone.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM
And now they’re gone! Rick, is that you tinkering or am I hallucinating?
RushBaby on July 16, 2007 at 3:57 PM
This is how Fred needs to handle this, because it’s the one area of his record he would have a very hard time defending with conservatives. Admitting he screwed up in voting for McVain-Feingold and admitting it didn’t work would be far better than defending his vote on the bill, as the latter will lose him votes in the primary.
thirteen28 on July 16, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Now we are getting some meat, rather than some meatheads spouting off about pro this or anti that.
He got some splanin to do.
right2bright on July 16, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Please!
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 4:04 PM
I want him to answer for it, not because it didn’t work, first because free-speech is sacred ground, and second he didn’t have the vision to see the ramifications of his actions.
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 4:06 PM
This part I don’t have a problem with.
McCain-Feingold was an abomination. As far as I’m concerned, every other complaint levied against Fred! so far has been a giant load of crap. But supporting that one bill is enough to mar an otherwise spotless Senate voting record.
On the other hand, if it’s “hypocrisy” for Fred Thompson to thumb his nose at that law now, it’s a GOOD kind of hypocrisy. I’d love to see Hillary Clinton’s DNC bring accusations of campaign finance fraud against Thompson. How he responds could either break him, or make his campaign utterly bulletproof.
Bring it on.
logis on July 16, 2007 at 4:11 PM
McCain/Feingold was no “atrocity”…not in the sense that the last “amnesty bill” was…
I agree with some commenters…Joe “GOP” Voter doesn’t care about MF, at least as far as Thompson is concerned. Republicans are looking for a new “Reagan”, and Fred is the closest thing to that.
And that’s enough to make him a front-runner.
JetBoy on July 16, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Exactly. The Roberts court is in the process of taking McCain Feingold down. They already did away with some restrictions, Scalia and Thomas wanted to find the entire law unconstitutional. Hell, even Kennedy voted against it.
People keep talking about Fred’s record. That’s his record. People keep talking about judges Fred will appoint. Well they won’t be people like Alito, Thomas, Roberts or Scalia because they are constitutionalists.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Just to let everyone know, after the pro-choice lobbying issue, this CFR thing is about all that is left in the tank to go after Fred! with. The rest of his resume is pretty clean, and has already withstood a healthy barrage of DNC talking points when he originally ran in Tennessee.
If these two issues are enough to make you want to go elsehwhere, by all means do so, but for those of you who can live with these, buckle in. Because this is about it in terms of things they can use to bash him with. And once the rest of the voting population starts to read and hear what we have since Fred! got on the trail, I suspect that they will be impressed.
Tman on July 16, 2007 at 4:18 PM
CFR is going to be for Fred what abortion is for Rudy.
Always Right on July 16, 2007 at 4:20 PM
I’m leaning toward Fred but will have to wait and see how he does in a debate before I would consider supporting him. If he’s not conservative enough for people though, I’d be perfectly willing to move down the list to Hunter and/or Tancredo.
If Rudy supporters are hoping to convince Fred supporters that Rudy is more conservative, good luck with that. You guys are going to be awfully busy in the coming months.
FloatingRock on July 16, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Please explain.
RushBaby on July 16, 2007 at 4:24 PM
To be certain his support of McCain-Feingold is a blemish on his record, but he’s already suggested that he’d change the most onerous part that deservedly gets the most flak- the ban on issue ads by organizations who take corporate funding. If I were him I’d still steal the “culture of corruption” mantra from the Democrats and stress his role as a bi-partisan government reformer; something Hillary could easily be attacked on.
He’s addressed it, and if he participates in the Aug 15 debate (and I hope he does) he’ll likely have to address it again. However I just don’t see this as a big issue for the average voter; the political junkies and insiders might still resent it (again, for good reason), but I don’t think this will- or should- be an unforgiveable sin.
This article seems to be another example of the FlipFlop Mitt machine going into full attack mode, with desperation being the likely motivator. I guess dumping millions of one’s own money into a campaign they’ve been working on for over a year only to barely break double-digit support will do that to some.
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Absolutely. Unconstitutional is a big word and not one that should be swept aside. Even Kennedy, as you pointed out, was/is against it! It says something quite sobering about him.
Maybe as some say…Maybe it won’t be an issue in the coming election. But I hope more people are interesting in established freedoms then are interested in their favorite candidate winning. He needs to answer for it.
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM
My biggest beef with Fred was his inability to stop the Chinese from funneling thousands of dollars into Clinton’s 1996 campaign in exchange for sensitive technology information. Check it out: type in “who is johnny chung”
volsense on July 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Some people are missing the point here. The point is this: Thompson made buddy-buddy with the Democrats on his committee, just like Lindsey Graham sucking up to Ted Kennedy. Was that momentary abberation, or is Fred another one of those bipartisan Beltway backstabbers?
The question is legit. As someone who voted twice for Bush, and who is now questioning that choice — given Bush’s disgusting shamnesty sellout — I want a conservative candidate who is absolutely rock-solid on the right principles. If I’m going to be screwed over, I’d rather be screwed over by my enemy than by my so-called “friend.”
So if Fred is a spineless sellout (like Dubya) I want to know about it NOW — and not after he’s got $50 million in the bank and is steamrollering toward the 2008 convention.
Ali-Bubba on July 16, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Boy I hope so, because agree or disagree, Rudy did come around and address it face to face like a man.
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Ron Paul protect us! RON PAUL! ROOOONNN PAAAAUUUUULLLLLL…..
Mike H on July 16, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Fair enough.
But on the flip side, I do think there is legitimate grounds for saying that lobbyists and other big money special interests should not be able to buy the votes of congress outright in what would appear to anyone as quid pro quo. That undermines the democratic process and the voters faith thereof.
The trick of course, is finding that ground in a law that respects the first amendment and the right to petition for redress of grievances while preventing the quid pro quo vote buying that might occur.
The problem with McVain-Feingold is that it failed on both counts. Acknowledging that might help Fred minimize his problems with the base on this issue and could even open up opportunities to do something else. If, on the other hand, he fails to acknowledge that the base has very legitimate gripes on this issue (e.g., like Bush did on the amnesty for illegals issue) he’s going to run into serious problems.
thirteen28 on July 16, 2007 at 4:32 PM
This was a clear case of attempting to limit free speech. It was, to anyone who calls themself a strict constitutionist, an abomination against the 1st Amendment. Interestingly enough, the case that helped bring it down was by a Wisconsin Right To Life Group. That’s right, a pro-life group. And people wonder why NRTL gave Fred a 33% rating during this term.
This is what Scalia had to say during the trial.
When Roberts and Alito joined the court, the court reversed itself. So, if Fred was a champion of the law, even to the extent of filing an amicus brief, and the case was overturned by conservative, constructionist judges, what does that tell you about Fred’s judgement?
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Right; his continuing praise of Roberts as a constitutionalist and assistance in getting him nominated along with a history of citing a federalist philosopy should definitely be interpreted as a lack of support for constitutionalist judges like Roberts.
Instead we should trust someone like FlipFlop Mitt who said (before his miraculous and recent conversion to conservatism) that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, supports federal infringements on 2nd Amendment rights, and favors Big Government federal health care and education despite a lack of constitutional mandate.
Or perhaps RINO Rudy, who when asked if he supported Roe v. Wade (which many pro-choice types agree was incorrectly decided) being overturned gave a noncommittal answer of “It would be OK”.
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
opps…sorry. The above was in answer to RushBaby.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
So you are saying Fred would flip flop on a law he helped write? Wow. That takes flip flopping up a notch.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 4:40 PM
I thought we weren’t supposed to judge him by his clients.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 4:42 PM
From day one that has been my number issue with him, and he personally has done nothing to ease those concerns.
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 4:44 PM
I’ve heard Fred mention McCain-Feingold in a speech…he said the way it turned out it is a mistake…of course he will have to answer in detail to this…
DCJeff on July 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM
My concern is why he did it to begin with. He wasn’t exactly asked to support it with a gun to his head. He chose to support it, and obviously did so after a great deal of thinking. The conclusion he came to was that McCain-Feingold was a good policy. He may regret it now, but it’s kind of late for that.
amerpundit on July 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
So he can’t admit he made a mistake or misjudged the consequences of the bill? That’s a bit different than, say, saying you “wouldn’t want to return to the days of Reagan / Bush” and claiming “I was an independant at that time”, then on a following campaign citing Reagan as a hero. That’s a flip-flop; one of many for Mitt.
Assisting the President of the United States with a judicial nomination is quite a bit different than being hired to represent the interests of the Acme Slingshot Company and the like.
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM
“However I just don’t see this as a big issue for the average voter; the political junkies and insiders might still resent it (again, for good reason), but I don’t think this will- or should- be an unforgiveable sin.”
Being politically inept myself, I ask why insiders and political junkies resent the ban on issue ads by organizations who take corporate funding? What are the free speech ramifications? Isn’t it more of an issue on the recieving end of the free speech, rather than the giving end?
captivated_dem on July 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I’ve seen him answer for McCain-Feingold in an interview where he said he just wanted a way to try to get rid of so much money pouring into Washington, it failed miserably, and he didn’t support it anymore.
However, he’s going to have to answer for CFR. And more than once, I’m sure. He better be in the next debate or even his most ardent supporters are going to start leaving.
apollyonbob on July 16, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Actually, Thompson made “buddy buddy” with John McCain. That’s not great, but it’s a LOT better than allying with someone like Ted Kennedy.
Before this happened, McCain had a reputation as a very respectable conservative Senator. This is definitely an “aberration” on Thompson’s part, but it’s really the only significant one. And it’s exactly the sort of mistake a rookie Senator might make. Personally, I’d be happier if Thompson said he did it out of opportunism rather than short-sightedness…
But either way, if this is the only complaint that holds more water than stuff like that abortion lobbying nonsense, Thompson is the Golden Boy.
logis on July 16, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I’ll give you points for tenacity if not consistency. No, it’s not the same. There is absolutely nothing similar for running for office as a Republican in the most Democratic/Liberal state in the union and not running on the record of the man most liberals see as the ultimate bad guy and being an co-author and sponsor of a bill that was an assault on the 1st Amendment. One is worse. I’ll let you decide for yourself which.
Incidentally, Hollowpoint, do you know who along with the pro-life groups were the most against this law and sued to get it overturned? Yep, the good old National Rifel Association.
Here’s what John Kerry had to say about McCainFeingold and the NRA’s attempt to get an excemption back in 2002.
Are you telling me you are against the NRA and support John Kerry?
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 5:16 PM
CFR has nothing to do with stopping Congress from stuffing cash into freezers and has everything to do with stopping citizens from reporting on such.
If Fred*#!& would come out for repeal of CFR, he would get my enthusiastic support. I’m not holding my breathe.
pedestrian on July 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I have an Aunt who lives in Northern Mississippi. She watched these hearings on C-SPAN and said the exact thing. She won’t vote for Fred, and I am yet unconvinced. I’m hoping Newt will get in. There’s a conservative who isn’t going to sell out on Shamnisty or let the Dems run roughshod over him. I think if Fred gets the nomination we are in for a lot of disappointment.
Ordinary1 on July 16, 2007 at 5:35 PM
As to campaign finance, Newt outlined the perfect plan years ago: No limits, full disclosure. Let the free press handle the rest. If your congressman is sold out to special interests, you will have that information, and if you vote to re-elect
Tom DeLayBob NeyDuke CunninghamWilliam JeffersonHarry Reida crook, that’s your fault.Ali-Bubba on July 16, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Maybe not as different as you think.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Lest we forget, the whole supposed corruption scandal behind was CFR was liberal organizations like Pew (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006449) plus McCain’s guilty conscience.
pedestrian on July 16, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I’m well aware of that. Just as reading my posts should make you aware that I do not agree with Fred’s role in supporting McCain-Feingold, and that there’s legitimate reason to resent that role.
He’s admitted he was wrong, and said he’d work to change it if elected. What more can be expected I don’t know.
How did FlipFlop Mitt address 2nd Amendment concerns? After boasting of standing up to the NRA in his previous incarnation, now Mitt 3.0 joined the NRA. In addition, he claimed to be a “lifelong hunter” (now known to be a lie) and a gun owner (also a lie). This is FlipFlop Mitt’s style- that of a hyper-ambitious politician who’ll say whatever you want to hear, then screw you the moment you turn your back.
I understand he was running for governor in a liberal state and wanted to that electorate; that’s fine. Just don’t try convincing me that he was simply pandering to the moderates in MA then, but not pandering to conservatives now. He’s a political chameleon who’s changed colors so many times that no one knows what his natural state looks like and thus can’t be trusted- and his numbers suggest that most would agree.
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 5:41 PM
You described the lefties to perfection.
Entelechy on July 16, 2007 at 5:46 PM
And you’re saying it’s not too different a situation by citing an editorial by the notoriously liberal WaPo that concedes he worked pro bono?
For your next trick perhaps you’d like to prove that gasoline isn’t flammable by dropping a lit match into some.
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 5:48 PM
I love this “regular joe voters aren’t up on McCain/Feingold” schtick. The base votes in the primaries, and fred? will not get the nomination for this and his other nuanced positions. Besides all that, he’s a liar.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Somehow I knew you’d say that…
In the end, he was asked to do a job becase his strong connections to his buddies in the Senate provide the judicial nominee with “access.” It’s lobbying by another name. Promoting this client because you agree with the cause, and ignoring those you’d disagree with is logically inconsistent when considering on the guy’s whole record.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Is it any wonder that the lying fake non-candidate that wants to have it both ways, attracts supporters that want it both ways also?
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Did Romney really say that? That is positively damning.
How in the Hell does somebody try to compare a stance on one Senate bill to the wholesale condemnation of all of modern conservatism?
logis on July 16, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I’ve already addressed this matter in a general way: Interference in Americans’ free exercise of their rights of speech, press, and assembly is best considered haram and whoever does it, murtad. Unless someone refutes Bryan convincingly, Freddie merits opposition, at best.
Kralizec on July 16, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Except it’s not at all inconsistant when you are hired to represent one client with whom you may disagree in the course of your profession, but choose to represent another for free.
Could it just be he represented Roberts- whom Fred continues to praise- pro bono because he, you know, supported him? Think that might just be a possibility? That- if true- he represented an abortion rights group regarding a federal funding ban simply because he was hired to as a representative of his law firm? That too implausible for you?
If you want logically inconsistant, you’ll have to look at your own contention that Fred didn’t volunteer his services for free on an issue he agreed with, but did on one he didn’t agree with.
In any case, we really don’t know what his actual role was in the abortion lobbying matter.
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I oppose Fred on CFR.
Entelechy on July 16, 2007 at 6:24 PM
This is where I get that your either not arguing in good faith or you just don’t understand Romney’s record.
He has not flip flopped so many times blah, blah, blah and you can’t find any evidence that he did. Saying it over and over for changing his stated position while voting a different way (just as Fred did when he was a candidate from a purple state) does not make him any more a flip flopper than Romney. Both Romney and Fred ran as personally pro-life but as supporters of a woman’s right to choose. Both voted as pro-life supporters once in office. That’s just a fact no hyperbole. If Mitt is a flip flopper on abortion so is Fred.
Romney has an executive record as being a small government Republican. Fred doesn’t. Fred has an executive record of fighting in a hostile environment for social conservative issues. Fred doesn’t. Romney has an executive record where he has proven he can win Democrat votes and win an election. Fred doesn’t. In fact, Fred doesn’t have an executive record, either in politics or in the private sector. Ever.
Romney voted to curb some guns. You don’t like it. I know. But that doesn’t make him someone who assaulted the right to own guns. There is no inherent right to own an assault weapon. There is, however, an inherent right in this country to free speech and what Fred helped right, negotiated for and fought for was deemed unconstitutional. Now he is trying to run away from what he did.
Fred has an extrememly undistinguished record of achievement in the Senate. The one term I have heard to describe him over and over is lazy. Super. To some, that’s a great thing because he can now call himself on podcasts whatever he wants and many lap it up. I would rather look at the things he did do and judge him on his real record. Being a champion of legislation that virtually ever conservative pundit, think tank and organization called an unconstitutional abomination and has been struck by the Supreme Court as unconsititutional does nothing to sway me to support him. You can call him a conservative but his record doesn’t support that claim.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Yep.
I didn’t get the quote exactly right as I was going from memory. Actual quote:
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 6:30 PM
You must be joking. I’ll not rehash as his flips and flops have been pointed out here many times already and I know you’re fully aware of that. Were it just abortion it would be forgiveable, but his entire political philosopy turned on a dime- he’s acting exactly like a pandering opportunist and I regard him as such.
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Ever notice how every single fred? thread ends up stripping away the facade that fred? has so carefully crafted on TV, and exposing him as an empty suit? It’s striking.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Go for it. You claim he has flip flopped so often everyone knows it. You call him flip flop Mitt everytime you bring his name up. So back up your claim.
If you can.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 6:42 PM
That’s not what I said. Read it again.
My point is that Fred himself has written that a lawyer or lobbyist should not be judged on the merits of his clients. He says this becuase there are some clients in his past that are unsavory to the right wing. Then again, there are some that the right wing strongly approve of. Your argument requires you to believe what he says about his positions now when considering his record, which really isn’t considering his record at all, or accepting the “I only did it for the money” defense when confronted with those unsavory clients.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Oh and don’t use the claim that he said he wasn’t trying to run on Reagan’s record in a Senate race against Ted Kennedy in the most liberal state, against the most liberal Senator as proof of his RINO record. If that’s the best you got you clearly know nothing about politics.
Hey, at least he didn’t say he was going to follow Reagan’s legacy as Gov of CA signing one of the most expansionist abortion laws ever.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 6:46 PM
You Rudy loving, Pro-choice, anti-southern Rinos need to knock this Fred! swiping off.
Question: This was so horrible that we can’t vote for any Republican who had anything to do with this bit of nasty legislation right?
By my estimates that means that President George W. Bush signed this into law before the 2004 Presidential election. Where are the blogs with you guys saying that we had to put another candidate in the primary other than President Bush? That you wouldn’t vote for President Bush for a second term because of this travesity? Somehow that slipped right by me.
Go sell your snake oil somewhere else. I ain’t voting for NY RINO Rudy no way, no how! You’re not trying to tell me that Rudy G. is MORE conservative than Fred! are you?
Romney’s people can’t wait to jump on this… for obvious reasons…
Sultry Beauty on July 16, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Yeah, Mitt! was obviously moving to the moderates for the election.
Do I remember a assertion by the fred?heads that record trumps rhetoric? What exactly IS Mitts! record when it comes to abortion, campaign promises, etc?
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Do it yourself; I’m out the door and don’t have the time or desire to waste the time on a second-tier candidate with little or no chance to win the nomination.
You can start here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=romney+flip+flop
Results 1 – 10 of about 279,000 for romney flip flop. (0.06 seconds)
Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 6:54 PM
The answer I expected. In other words, you got nothing. Just like most people understanding of Fred’s record.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 6:59 PM
tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Yes, he did say that. As a young politician he made a mistake in that debate with Kennedy. (Although, he really had no choice since Mitt! was trying to run moderate in order to oust that fat windbag) He allowed Kennedy to frame the context of what “Reagan/Bush” meant.
Kennedy accused Mitt! of being for the Reagan/Bush economics that led to the growth of children living in poverty, growth of children being born out of wedlock, and the growth of unemployment. Mitt! said he wasn’t for going back to Reagan?Bush defined in Kennedy’s terms.
I wonder how high a pedestal we would have Mitt! on, if he could have, by the grace of God, sent that sack of $hit Kennedy into obscurity?
Of course, Mary Jo was not available for comment.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Don’t worry, I’m sure the Fredheads can explain all this as a “minor oversight” as they call out “RINO ALERT ALL CYLINDERS!” on Romney, Giuliani, or whoever.
Fred Thompson can do no wrong, otherwise he wouldn’t be Fred Thompson!
BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 7:20 PM
I’m not trying to convince you to vote for Rudy by trying to convice you he is more conservative than Fred, I am trying to stop you from being fooled by Fred’s false image factory. None of the top tier Republican candidates are solid social conservatives. All of them are fiscally conservative and seem to understand the GWOT, but none of them are the gun-totin’, fetus lovin’, homophobic card carrying conservative. Mitt is pretending to be one, but no one is buying. Fred is pretending to be one, but for some reason no matter how much evidence to the contrary seems to surface, some people still want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from him. Once you strip away the pandering and the false fronts, I think you will see that all the candidates are flawed in one way or another, because they do not agree with you on everything. Then, you will see that Rudy is by far and away the most accomplished — as a posecutor, as a chief executive, and as a leader in crisis.
tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 7:27 PM
I agree with the first part, not the second. Romney was running as a long shot candidate to unseat what is arguably the safest Senator, maybe ever. This man not only comes from the Kennedy dynasty, he, as you said, actually killed a woman and it only seemed to make him more sympathetic to the MA public.
Romney knew what he was saying. Running as a Reagan supply sider in MA, he might as well have just quit the race. So yea, he made the heretical statement of saying he wasn’t a Reagan Republican to get elected. Horror.
But since Fred supporters say all that matters is the record, not the rhetoric, how about we judge that. Romney was a brilliant executive in the private sector where all that matters is financial success and a great Gov fighting more moonbats than you can imagine.
I don’t need to google him. I own property in MA and I have seen it up close and personal. Romney walks the walk. Fred just does podcasts.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 7:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
I wouldn’t call him a flopper… none of these guys are! Nor was Pres. Bush and you know it! They did and said what they thought they needed to in debates to get/be elected in the more liberal states. Additionally, they all have to deal with something Democrats NEVER have to deal with, and that’s defending their “right-wing extremist” views.
Republican candidates have to deal with the inevitable spin of the media after debates that try to portray them as anti-abotion zealots, racist, homophobes. This is generated by the McCainites mentality that believe that “uniting”, “compromising” principals, and meeting Democrats MORE than halfway is somehow an admirable quality. We are so filled with decorum that we move our principals and wonder how in the heck we ended up here.
Question: DO DEMOCRATS EVER COMPROMISE TO THE RIGHT?
No.. just pointing out the hypocrisy of those very people who don’t give a rat’s butt about these issues coming off on Fred! because he’s not conservative ENOUGH. When it comes to the General, you all want a stem-cell, cloning, pro-choice, CFR loving, gun law loving, gay rights advocating Republican.. because, donchya know that that’s ALL that can get elected in the General. You don’t care whether Fred! is really conservative enough. You just wanna make sure that your version of MAINSTREAM ELECTABLE comes out on top.
But the reality is that most people going into the voting booth aren’t as liberal as you folks, or the MSM wanna make them out to be. I just don’t particularly like to hear so-called Republicans tearing down Republican candidates using Democrat tactics. It’s truly beneath your standards. Or…. maybe not.
Sultry Beauty on July 16, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »