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: « Previous 1 2
When fred? the lying fake starts acting like a conservative, then he’ll get conservative treatment. He’s a coward and will be treated with disdain and contempt.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Yes, why, we should nominate Fred, a man with ZERO conservative achievements and ZERO executive experience and ZERO electoral harship under his belt over someone like Romney who has done more than talk about conservativism, he’s lived it and in the most liberal of areas.
Who cares if the nameless, experience-devoid Fred hasn’t a shot at winning an election against a juggernaut like Clinton. We need to elect the conservative candidate who talks a lot of talk, yeah. We’d be better off getting clocked by Clinton then having to deal with an insufferable RINO.
I’m really tired of all this RINO crap? We use it at HA and conservative blogs every single day. Don’t we have anything new? What the hell does RINO even mean [I know what it stands for, what does it mean]?
BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Then you should hang out here more often. For months now, all we have heard about is how crappy Rudy is or what a flip flopper Mitt is while Fred is somehow revered as the messiah of conservatism without a whit of evidence. Anyone who disagrees or points out the inconsistencies in Fred’s record and his rhetoric gets slammed. I guess you missed all that?
I guess I just don’t like to hear so-called Republicans tell me how I should or shouldn’t think or that I can’t look at the candidates records.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Let me summarize this arguemnt:
Fred helped enact a new law, the Mccain-Feingold CFR. He now, within only a couple years, says this was a mistake and it doesnt function as intended. This is for some unknown reason NOT flip flopping.
Mitt has various quotes out there taken from different places over the past decade or more which when mashed and edited these soundbyes are a flip-flop.
Apparently the FredHeads value sound bytes more then policy enactments?
Resolute on July 16, 2007 at 7:57 PM
What kind of answer is that? I wasn’t, nor have I EVER, said that Fred! was MORE conservative than any other potential Republican candidate. That’s what YOU ALL are talking about. At the same time, when asked who you would support as an alternative.. the answer is Rudy. HUH!?! Disingenuous fakes you all are. You are the LIARS! If you cared about whether someone was CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH, then you’d be clamoring for a REAL CONSERVATIVE to come up to the plate…. because, based on your criteria, there isn’t one out there yet!
Sultry Beauty on July 16, 2007 at 7:58 PM
This is actually quite scares me coming from California…
My lovely Governor already thinks he’s President:
Believe me! I know about Flip-floppers!
Sultry Beauty on July 16, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Hmmm… *scratches head* No one’s telling anyone how to think about their candidate here. Pick who you want. I’ll pick who I want.
Yes, I read HA regularly. Have from the beginning. Read, and still read, Ace of Spades, and Allahs In The House before that. I remember going to APs site after the Yankees lost looking at Jeters mug and feeling so sad missing AP. Was SO happy Michelle brought him here!
My favorite AP MP3 of all time is Pat O’B’s Hello… That song will forever, never be the same for me. I feel a fit of euphoric laughter whenever I hear it come on the radio, or in an elevator. Which can cause many funky looks at times.
My only point is… and this is to ALL THE CANDIDATES… tell me what you believe and I’ll decide on those facts. Tell me someone’s more or less conservative than the other means crap to me. Name calling means even more crap to me. When you try to shoove Rudy down my throat by tearing apart Fred!, I’m gonna point a few things out.
All I know is that for the last few months of all the Shamnesty, Democrat Congress, and calls for pulling out of Iraq… the only happy, peaceful moments I got through ALL of that where when Fred! filled in for Paul Harvey. It was pure MAGIC. I didn’t here any of that stuff from the current candidates. And THEY are the ones OFFICIALLY RUNNING! That’s all I’m saying.
Sultry Beauty on July 16, 2007 at 8:15 PM
See, flip-flop originated with Kerry and was popularized by JibJab, and arose from Kerry’s “I was for the war before I was against it” quip.
The RINO shouting Flip-Flop Crew is always pulling quotes from 10 years ago and shouting “AHA! We’ve got you!”
Are we going to stop idolizing Reagan for his amnsety law? After all, Reagan is super flip flopper by Flip-Flop Crew standards. In fact, anyone who has ever changed there position on anything is subject to attack by the Flip-Flop Crew.
What, dear Flip-Flop Crew, does Fred have that other candidates don’t. What has Fred ever done for the conservative movement? Apparently he’s got a big fat “Yes for CFR!” under his belt, but don’t worry Flip-Flop Crew, he’s opposed to it now that its politically convenient for him, and that isn’t really a flip flip because this is Fred Thompson we’re talking about. Flip flop is a label reserved only for non-Fred Thompson candidates.
I am glad you’re reading my blog though, Sultry Beauty :D
Like I said, my deal with Fred isn’t that he’s not a conservative, it is that he hasn’t brought any value to anything.
Basically speaking, Fred Thompson and I have given the same amount of effort to the conservative movement. In fact, I would wager that I can write conservative essays on every topic Fred has and write it better, offer better ideas, and creare a more unified message.
BKennedy for President: He can write conservative essays too, and doesn’t have any nasty CFR baggage weighing him down.
BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 8:21 PM
No one called you a name, so why do you start?
2nd, I don’t compare fred? to others. I study him all by his lonesome and he is not a conservative at his core. Therefore he isn’t afforded the protection a real conservative is afforded.
3rd, I never said anything about you or Rudy. My issue is with fred?, the lying faker, and fred? the lying faker alone.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:23 PM
With all respect (even if you are shouting at me), if you are here all the time then you know this place is a non-stop Fred love-a-thon as are most blogs on the right side. You expect people not to point out the facts about Fred after months of hearing, daily, about how splendiforous he is? Particularly while some like csdeven have been called every name in the book for just pointing out Fred’s record? You have got to be kidding.
Fred is some media creation. He has, being generous, a non-record of accomplishment in the Senate. He co-sponsored something like four pieces of legislation in his 8 year Senate career, the most significant being the completely anti-conservative McCain/Feingold. He refuses to debate favoring instead this shadow candidacy where he can float in and out and never have to answer hard questions. That’s exactly how you get another Arnold.
No thanks. The other candidates are out there everyday defending their records and making a case for why they should be the person to lead us in some immensely difficult times. Some like Rudy. Other of us favor Romney. But I refuse to even consider, and even worse take crap without responding to, the supporters of a candidate who is afraid to get in the fight. If Fred can’t stand up to Rudy and Mitt, he can’t stand up to Hillary let alone head chopping Islamic nuts.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 8:29 PM
DAMN SKIPPY, MY CONSERVATIVE BROTHER!! Damn skippy!
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Facts are just facts. Fred may be a great guy but he is not some conservative god.
What surprises me is why the right blogs who claim they are all about facts have allowed him to get away with this scam. It can’t be advertising dollars or Allah would have his iphone by now.
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 9:44 PM
There are two:
1) Ron Paul; and
2) Absolutely Nobody Else.
logis on July 16, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Since Ron Paul is tracking at about 0% there is not a conservative candidate that can win the nomination, let alone the general election. Let’s be realists. Let’s just find someone who will kill terrorists and has a chance to keep Hillary out of office.
tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Honestly I really couldn’t care less about McCain-Fingergold or whatever the name is. LOL. I am won over by social issues, small business friendly policies, low taxes, and solid security on all fronts. Not the politics of politics.
Vaporman87 on July 16, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Well thats true. I was just listening to Alex Jones on Prison Planet the other day when he was talking to the great conservative martian, Ron Paul, and Ron was explaining why all his pork projects where protected by both Thomas Jefferson and cthulhu.
K-rhist. And I have to defend my candidate against an alien? A real alien?
JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I hope that’s not a common belief: take my rights, but don’t take my comforts.
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 10:42 PM
When I was growing up, I assumed I was a liberal, because I liked liberty. Now, it turns out I’m a conservative because I want to conserve liberty. It’s terribly confusing, let me tell ya. Anyway, My criteria do not begin and end with how “conservative” somebody is, since that term can mean a lot of different things. I’m one of those “Republican leaning independents” you keep hearing about in polls, although the lean has gotten more severe over the past few years, and I was even briefly registered as (R) in my state. This makes me more “conservative” than the average voter, in many ways, and if you think I and people like myself are left of center, I’ve got news you won’t like.
Big S on July 16, 2007 at 10:44 PM
#ell! He’d have two iphones. One to use and the other to run through a blender just to rub it in our noses! lol
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I do like him, but I don’t love him (politically speaking, of course) 8) but he has never been my first choice. Among the front-runners he is, but my choice would still be Duncan Hunter. Too bad he’s second (or is it third?) tier.
urbancenturion on July 16, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Beat me to it. I was too busy reading the thread. My first choice also. Unfortunately, have to say lower second. And that’s being optimistic
PowWow on July 16, 2007 at 11:41 PM
ditto
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 11:55 PM
I think most people would think CFR meant Council on Foreign Relations.
I’ll vote for whoever seems strongest on defending the nation against Islamofascism. And crushing the Jihad.
The rest is interesting, but not immediately vital.
Fred can have six toes -and be mistaken about how to get the corrupt bucks out of politics- but there won’t be any politics, or toes, if the militant maniacs of the Koran aren’t stopped.
profitsbeard on July 17, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Alright, since this is a thread about CFR and we’re saying Fred! is a empty suit, then how about Mitt Romney as Gov.?
Anyone care to tell me about Mass CFR and how executive and Presidential Mitt was in handling it? Seriously! Maybe you’ll win me to your side. I give you an open-mind and forum. Instead of telling me what Fred! is incapable of, why don’t you tell me what Mitt’s CFR accomplishments. Anyone who wasn’t apart of Congress (i.e. Rudy & Mitt) can sit on the sidelines, put their finger in the wind, or read the tea leaves. But they still have a record as a Mayor and a record as a Governor.
Sultry Beauty on July 17, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Mitt managed MASS the most liberal state in the country and Rudy managed NYC the most liberal city in the country. The fact that either have any conservative credentials is amazing. Its easy being conservative with a voting block of NASCAR dads, being conservative in MASS or NYC is the equivalent of bull riding. And I would hadly call what Rudy did in NYC sitting on the sidelines — he had buildings falling on top of him for chrissake.
tommylotto on July 17, 2007 at 1:30 AM
No. Being “conservative” in MASS or NYC is the equivalent of being LIBERAL.
And I’m afraid the idea that Fred Thompson had an “easy” ride in Tennessee doesn’t quite reach the level of non-idiocy either. You see, he was only the sixth Republican Senator in the history of that state.
Being an east-coast RINO isn’t really all that unique an achievement.
But converting Reagan Democrats into Thompson Republicans – and winning by a 20-point margin? Let’s just say it’s pretty easy to see why a lot of people are so rabidly desperate to “save” the Republican Party from a candidate like that.
logis on July 17, 2007 at 2:07 AM
I take it then the opposite is true, and that you think liberal senators from the south are actually conservatives. Like say, John McCain or Mel Martinez.
For a guy who’s chosen name is logis, you leave out a lot of logical thought. Again, by your logic Reagan is a LIBERAL because he was Governor of LIBERAL California. Your logic dictates that the supposed majority of any electoral area determines the nature of the candidate who gets elected.
That is why I so dislike Fredheads, they love to make exceptions for their favorite noncandidate. Fredheads tend to be as myopic as Fred. They talk a lot, they operate by stating the geographic area a candidate was elected in dictates their political philosophy, and in general they aren’t able to point out a single achievement of Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson is a nobody. As far as new political ideas and perspective go he’s indistinguishable from a hole in the wall. If his face weren’t plastered all over the boob tube, no one would give him a second look. The man has accomplished nothing, just given a lot of talk.
Talk is cheap Fredheads. Call me when Fred grows some Malkins and decides to take action.
BKennedy on July 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM
Someone is pretty afraid of Fred!
sabbott on July 17, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Wayyy more than just regular old run-of-the-mill afraid. They have to stick their heads under the covers and try to pretend he doesn’t even exist – he’s their bogie man!
Seriously though, this is the Internet, and there’s absolutely no way to know whether someone’s a Republican, a moonbat, or even a Paultian, just based on what he occasionally remembers to claim to be. But here is a reasonable theory to explain the rabid hatred, no matter which candidate the anti-Frederalists “secretly” like:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010534.php
Pure jealousy. Spite is indeed a harsh mistress.
logis on July 17, 2007 at 6:29 AM
It’s a little hard to calibrate the rage-o-meter when it’s nearly always pegged, but does anybody else notice that these guys go from “irate” to “totally batshit crazy” whenever somebody compares Thompson to Reagan?
I’m sure I’d get just as sick of all the similarities between Giuliani and The Gipper – if his supporters could manage to come up with one.
logis on July 17, 2007 at 6:38 AM
It’s not that people are afraid of Fred so much as afraid of the groupie-like behavior of many of his supporters. He hasn’t announced his campaign, hasn’t outlined any real policies, and some people still go crazy over him as if he were some sort of Messiah. They treat every negative in his past as a liberal media conspiracy, and brush off every criticism of the (non)candidate as “fear of Fred” on the part of some other candidate expressed via supporters or other surrogates. The cult of personality is unbecoming, and is not a serious way to go about selecting a candidate, since it chokes off discussion while simulaneously limiting the candidate’s options. A sizeable segment of the Fredheads are just one or two small steps removed from the Ron Paul Martyrs Brigades at this point, and are really in dire need of reasonable counterarguments.
Big S on July 17, 2007 at 7:17 AM
Almost every problem plaguing our political system can be traced to how money is raised. We saw the effects of special interest with the shamnesty bill. The voters will was being ignored in favor of the big money special interest groups. This is a persistent or perpetual condition in Washington.
I would go so far as to support a system where no groups, unions or pacs could contribute and individual voters can donate their 5000 dollar max amount and make it mandatory that IRS audits are performed on every body that contributes. This would accomplish several things.
1. People with something to hide would not contribute.
2. We could make sure that those moneys where legally earned.
3. Politicians would be beholding to the people not special interest
TheSitRep on July 17, 2007 at 7:19 AM
I should note that I don’t consider “Fred Thompson is a nobody” a reasonable counterargument.
Big S on July 17, 2007 at 7:33 AM
freds? behavior, at it’s core, is decidedly NOT conservative.
fred? could have announced a date he would announce last April without any contract problems. Just like Newt did. Newt respected conservatives enough to give them a date certain that he would announce.
fred? does not. Therefore, he does not deserve the support of real conservatives like myself and others on this forum that see fred? for the liar he is.
You are again building your straw man arguments because freds? piss poor history is indefensible. The man is not qualified. He has no executive experience. He uses a fake red pickup to fool potential supporters. He did nothing in the senate except pass the biggest POS legislation that has come down the pike in years. He flip-flopped on abortion. He is more arm twisting lobbyist that public servant. He represented a dictator and sided against American citizens in an asbestos lawsuit. He thinks his acting reputation is the same as his real life reputation. He brags about his inflated poll numbers like he actually has been challenged and is the guy still standing.
So, yeah, attack another candidate or a person on this board and I’m sure that will help you forget those facts about freddie boy.
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:42 AM
P.S. Except for the aberration of the Rasmussen poll featured so prominently here at Hot Air, Fred is not doing so great in the polls. He is still a good 8 points behind, sucking Rudy’s fumes.
tommylotto on July 17, 2007 at 8:03 AM
“Forget”? So that’s what you’re really so terrified of after all: You think that you’re Spamming the exact same list of grievances four dozen times a day because everyone else in the world BESIDES YOU is autistic.
logis on July 17, 2007 at 9:53 AM
O/T Cs, I answered your question about the Trinity in the vault, so go have a gander there if you want to talk about it.
Back on topic:
McCain-Feingold will not cluck defiance with the general electorate. Only those of us who are insane junkies.
Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 1:14 PM
So uh, are the Fredheads actually going to provide some conservative accomplishments of Fred “Nobody” Thompson, or are they going to lambaste me over calling him a nobody. Fred is a nobody because he has no executive experience and he has no conservative accomplishments. I don’t make my vote based on who had the most air time in a TV series.
I haven’t seen a single thing Fred has done for the conservative movement but talk. Fred is a load of hype with no substance. The only thing I “fear” about Fred Thompson is that I fear he’ll be nominated in a rush of hype and get his little red wagon fixed by Hillary or Edwards. Thompson brings nothing but essays to the table. Hillary will be saying she has executive experience by proxy, Edwards will be drumming up his two Americas rhetoric and lambasting Fred over the Iraq war. Bill Richardson, should he get the nomination, has actual executive experience. Obama is the only fair fight for Fred, since they are both running on Hollyweird star power and charisma.
Don’t you get it Fredheads? Aversion to your [non]candidate is not a sign of fear. It’s like saying I made a bet on a fight on the biggest, most trained fighter and I’m afraid of a 5′2 internet geek challenger beating up on my pick, a 6′2 martial artist. Fred Thompson is the internet geek (yes, I know he’s physically over 6′).
Fred is nothing like Reagan. The only thing they have in common is that they are actors with conservative opinions. Reagan had executive experience. Reagan had courage. Reagan was the great communicator with a unified message, not a Washington insider and one-note (a bad one, McCain- Feingold) Senator.
BKennedy on July 17, 2007 at 2:19 PM
You are a puppet on a string dude!
Go ahead, call ma another bad name. I dare you.
I double dare you.
I TRIPLE dog dare you!
lol
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 2:31 PM
hahaha
Here’s one I made up….
fred? is like a midget with a bullhorn standing behind a cardboard cutout of Ronald Reagan.
hahaha
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 2:35 PM
You forgot that he’s standing on an Herbal Essences [think weed] Soap Box because the megaphone still can’t reach over cardboard Reagan’s head.
BKennedy on July 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM
O/T
I responded with an apology to you in that thread.
On topic…..
freds? problem is that he has to get by we junkies in the primary first. And even if he gets to the general, he will be labeled a “lobbyist” etc. And, like all sheeple, the voters in the general believe EVERYTHING they read and hear in the MSM. The “lobbyist” label will destroy fred?, because they will refer to the dishonesty that surrounds lobbying by mentioning the name Abramoff. EVERYBODY knows what that means.
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 3:19 PM
cs, BKennedy, it looks like a marriage made in heaven for you two. I hope you’ll both be happy. ;-)
Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 3:20 PM
HA!
csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 3:22 PM
\
Gladly accepted.
Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2