NYT: Billing records show Fred did lobby for abortion group; Update: Pro-Fred blogger apologizes to LA Times
posted at 8:44 am on July 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Patterico beat me to the punch. What on earth was Mark Corallo thinking when he told the LA Times no way nuh uh never happened when he didn’t know that for a fact? Did the campaign even think to check the billing records? If not, or if they couldn’t, then why not just spin it in a more fact-friendly way from the outset? E.g., “He didn’t really want to lobby for them but he was new at the firm and felt obliged to do whatever they asked at first” or “His profound moral opposition to abortion didn’t calcify until he reached the Senate, as his voting record bears out.” Now, instead, they look like liars. Flashback:
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” he said in an e-mail…
Corallo, the spokesman for Thompson, was asked Friday about the board minutes and the five people who said they recalled Thompson accepting the lobbying assignment. He responded in an e-mail, saying that Thompson “may have been consulted by one of [his] firm’s partners who represented this group in 1991.”
Corallo said it was “not unusual for one lawyer on one side of an issue to be asked to give advice to colleagues for clients who engage in conduct or activities with which they personally disagree.”
And now compare today’s Times:
Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist on behalf of a group seeking to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s, even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.
According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf…
The billing records from Arent Fox show that Mr. Thompson, who charged about $250 an hour, spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno, who was then president of the family planning group. In addition, he lobbied “administration officials” for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said.
Patterico notes that Fred himself was careful all along to use the “lawyers don’t always agree with their clients” defense — which is weak in the context of an issue as morally important to the base as this one but beats lying, at least — and Corallo backed off his earlier blanket denial a few days after the LAT story broke, telling Politico, “He has no recollection of doing any work for this group. And since he was of counsel and not a member of the firm, it was not unusual for the firm’s partners to trot their clients in to meet him, get his views and even some advice.” (As Patterico notes, incredulously, they trotted people in for 19 hours?) But meanwhile, a meaningless story that should have been defused the first day suddenly has oxygen again 11 days later. And his third-tier opponents, at least, are already taking advantage.
Eh, I doubt it’ll matter. Pro-lifers have nowhere else to go realistically among the top candidates. Still, as Patterico says, “To me, the controversy over Fred Thompson’s alleged lobbying for an abortion rights group has little to do with his views on abortion, and more to do with his honesty.” Exit question: Does it? Or does it prove what his aides have been saying about the campaign not being ready for primetime yet, which is why they need to wait a while longer to declare? (Shortly after Labor Day, according to the Times.)
Update: Fred 29, Rudy 28.
Update: Nice job here by Joe Carter. He’s gone and violated the 12th Commandment — on the “Blogs For Fred” site, no less!
[T]hose of us on the front lines of the campaign are putting our integrity on the line whenever we defend our (still unannounced) candidate. When a spokesman for Thompson speaks on his behalf, we need to be able to trust that the message is honest and accurate. It also needs to be conveyed clearly, and not require the nuance of a DC lawyer to differentiate between fact and supposition.
I claimed that the LAT article was a “hit piece”, when the basic premise was later confirmed to be true. I implied that that the people from NFPRHA might be lying, only to find that their central claim–that Thompson lobbied for the group–was largely true. I may not agree with their motives, but it was wrong of me to unfairly malign the LAT and the NFPRHA leaders. I owe them both an apology.
I don’t like being wrong. I don’t like having to apologize to abortion advocates. And I really don’t like finding I put my own integrity in question.
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 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »
Yeah. I’m self-employed. The boss is gonna be furious that I spent all this time playing hooky. Where are the those wet noodles so that I can self-flagellate?
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Lying about something that can be checked is stupid, not morally wrong, if the point of the lie is to put someone in power that can save us from the leftists that are out to destroy us.
During WWII, governmental lies to the people were common. They served a just purpose in time of war. This is such a time. This is an election where the winner will take all. We must not be above lying, or any other tactic to win. We can’t play by the rules while the leftist nutroots don’t. That is a parallel to iraq where the American soldiers play by the rules, only to be murdered by the islamists who don burkas to shoot them in the back.
As long as Fred is the man for the job, the ends justify the means. That includes lying, wire tapping, breaking and entering, even tampering with the brakes of Michael Moore and Hillary.
Remember when Bill was caught lying about Jennifer Flowers? The public knew it, but voted for him anyway. Twice.
jihadwatcher on July 19, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Sounds like you have one of those man crushes on him. You think he went to law school with Lincoln and Adams while I’m an ambulance chaser. He just views the practice of law different from me. He’s classic old school, while I’m the corse vulgarian. Is that it?
I took a look at that ABA publication. Nothing in there that refutes my statement that lobbying is a grey area. Like I said the privilege probably attached back at the office consulting, but not the actual lobbying. Plus an argument could be made that if the sole topic of the consultation was lobbying (not statute interpretation, legislative drafting, etc.). Then the privilege would not apply. However, that is an impractical exception that could never be shown. The work could never be seperated out and the services would probablt be consdered dual-use lawyering and lobbying and would be covered.
However the ABA publication on the lobbying lawyer raised other issues of concern:
“Evaluating the Morality of a Particular Engagement”
“The Zealous Advocate”
“Conflicts of Interest ”
If Fred was always the ardent Pro-Life candadite that he claims to be, was it be moral for him to accept a job lobbying for an abortion group? If he did not believe in their cause — in fact thought it was murder, how could he be a zealous advocate for them? Wouldn’t his Pro-Life beliefs create a conflict of interest?
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Yes, but I never liked that.
Esthier on July 19, 2007 at 5:20 PM
jihadwatcher on July 19, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Unfortunately, there are too many sheep out there that believe every bumper sticker, and every utterance that spews from the likes of Keith Olbermann. I blame the media in part, and the general public, (sad to say) many of whom are too stupid/ignorant to get informed of anything.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Do I need to school you on inductive reasoning as well? I never said you weren’t ethical, nor did I intimate that you were a “corse vulgarian.” I said that it’s a difference in style.
You know as well as I do that older attorneys practice law more like an Atticus Finch than an Alan Shore.
I never meant to intimate that you are not a good or ethical lawyer, and if you took it that way, I apologize. But that wasn’t my intent at all.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 5:29 PM
So, our choice is to bury our heads in the sand, or let Hillary win?
What about the other rep candidates? What if they can lie enough to get the nomination? Should we just nominate the best liar?
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Fred Thompson, the ONLY man who can save America.
Rememer kiddies, the ends justify the means. “Isn’t zat right, mein propaganda mineester Goebells.”
I for one refuse to ignore Fred’s lying, misremembering, and grandstanding. He’s a weak non-candidate with a weak record. Why should I be making any exceptions at all for a man who probably cares more about his Law & Order reruns than about the job of President of the United States.
BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 5:31 PM
……who charged about $250 an hour….That’s the real shocker. Didn’t most high-powered lobbyists get more like a thousand an hour back then (and double that now)?
Sorry, if someone mentioned this before… I have no intention of reading all of the previous 403 comments.
LegendHasIt on July 19, 2007 at 5:42 PM
God, I hate to defend Fred, I really don’t care about him. But one has to call out these “always” type statements. Fred is the devil, he always goes to the money, he has no principle, he is eviiiillll. If you go on the websites and type in Fred Thompson Lobbyist, you get basically page after page of dems dissing him. Basically the exact same arguments (sometimes to the words) that you read on this thread and others. It shows that most know how to google, cut and paste and they know where the liberal websites are. About 20 to 1 vs. conservatives.
“
$30,000 lobbying over an 18 year period, don’t vote for him because he is so lousy at getting lobbying money.
There is other stuff about the AP story that started it, including a bio about the gal who wrote it. A real Berkely liberal wack job.
So at least after doing a little googling, I know where the Fred haters get their information. And I know a little more about Fred, he is terrrible at making money as a lobbyist. But there is some spreadsheets on his voting record, basically he votes along party lines, he voted pro-life. And I found out the goldmine of information that Fred beaters use to dig up the muck. Most of us don’t have the time to research like haters do, but it is there…both sides.
right2bright on July 19, 2007 at 5:46 PM
BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Wait! I thought Ron Paul was the only man who can save America!
There can be only one…
Big S on July 19, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Daddy, why did the bomb go off?
Well, Hillary Clinton is President and we stopped doing what’s necessary to keep us safe.
Why is Hillary Clinton President, daddy?
Well, Fred Thompson did something as a lawyer 10 years ago so people figured that was more important that keeping us safe from Islamic terrorists.
Weber48IDA on July 19, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Weber48IDA on July 19, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Heh, I like that.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Fred Thompson is the slightly more conservative Ron Paul.
His supporters are just as rabid and refuse to see any criticism of their shining candidate.
BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 5:58 PM
So, the only choice we have as conservatives is the non-candidate fred? and Hillary?
That’s a pretty narrow view ya know.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 5:58 PM
You know, after a lot of analysis, I’m really kind of miffed that you pulled that ad hominem attack defense on me when we were having such a productive discussion, I thought.
Oh, well, such is life.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Wow. The Cindy Sheenan absolute moral authority card. That trumps all! Forget the primaries! Vote for Fred for the children!!!
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Did you know that we only have a choice between the non-candidate fred? and Hillary? I only mention it because you probably missed the last 10 times that idea was dismissed in this thread alone.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Is it just me or are there really that many people who frequent here who have a very cursory understanding of these topics?
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Ya think? There are some people here I really enjoy talking with even when we disagree, but come on! We just went through a month of immigration talk where the emphasis on primaries and vetting candidates was opening discussed and emphasized. A few days later – no critical analysis of the candidates please, for our children’s sake.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Well, it seems that when it comes to fred?, he gets his own special set of rules.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Just disheartening, frankly. It’s like listening to environmentalists talk about Al Gore. The intellectual lines that distinguish[ed] the parties are ever more hazy.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 6:26 PM
I skipped ahead on the thread from about halfway down so if someone has already said this please forgive me.
I think the majority of us are in agreement that regardless of whether it’s Fred, Rudy, Mitt, Tanc or whatever Repub ultimately takes the primary we will vote for them over Hillary, Obama, or Silky. However, I DO think it’s important that we have all the info necessary before voting in the primary. Fred may not have remembered this small amount of work from long ago, but I agree that a little more fact checking before issuing a very strong denial might have been a good idea, especially considering how many of his supporters feel about this issue. I also don’t care as much about the 20 hours of work he did 15 years ago, I find the fact that he MAY have been less than forthcoming with the info more troubling.
I am still on the fence about where my vote will go. I think few of us are totally satisfied with any one candidate and were looking to Fred as a fresh face. He has a good voting record on this issue, as well as many others, so I will not discount him over one issue. But I wouldn’t even have considered it had he just said, I’m not sure or something along those lines rather than the thoughtless way it was handled by him or his campaign peeps.
hollygolightly on July 19, 2007 at 6:26 PM
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=856
Some choice words on this topic.
Enjoy
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 6:38 PM
From: http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=856
I love this comment:
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Sorry you took offense. Actually, I thought you attacked me first by alleging Fred had a loftier approach to my profession. Though I have only practiced a mere 15 years, I have my share of grey hair and for the past ten years my only partner has been an old salt that headed up Nixion’s CREEP until he resign, left the party, held a press conference and announced the President has no character. All lawyers get dirty after wrestling in the mud, but I approach my profession with as much if not more reverance than Fred.
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 7:01 PM
The Next Few Lines:
Here’s the thing. Fredheads actually BELIEVE that Fred can indeed change the country (and earth’s orbit) over the course of 3.3 hours. Fredheads are as bullheadedly committed as Ron Paul supporters. Their candidate is the annointed one, even if its been proven he is utterly irrelevant to anything important to conservatives.
Heck, at least Ron Paul is solidly pro-life and anti-CFR.
BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 7:01 PM
No, I try not to attack anyone personally, only their ideas. I respect the profession of law. I think its practitioners get a bum rap most of the time. Most of the lawyers I know are good, good people. And I know a lot of lawyers.
Until next time, thanks.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 7:11 PM
And Cheese Whiz.
Nichevo on July 19, 2007 at 7:46 PM
I don’t understand referencing the opinion of someone on some other blog some where. Make your own argument, because unless he’s getting paid to write his opinion, he carries less weight than someone here.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 7:47 PM
I was using the same source as jdawg because I saw a certain overlooked point in the essay.
Anti-Idolitarian Rotweiller knows that Fred does not move mountains in minutes, which provides a stark contrast to the “ONLY MAN WHO CAN SAVE AMERICA” Fred types around here. The point is that the sensible realize there are more options than just Fred and Fred is not as all-powerful a force as his supporters suggest.
BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Please provide examples of the “all-powerful force that his supporters suggest.” Other than the kind that are said in jest, of course.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 8:28 PM
I can’t say I’m too very pleased with this. It’s not about the abortion issue for me…like Amerpundit and Slublog…it’s about honesty.
Either his spokesman is a raving idiot or Fred! isn’t ready for the rough and tumble world of Presidential Politics.
What I am looking for is a straight shooter. Spinning is politics but it’s hard to go from “It never happened, no way” to “well maybe a little” and not have the *BULLSH1T* card thrown at you.
For me, Fred! is still Fred! but I want an explanation of this and if there is an explanation that is adequate it should come with the news of the immediate termination of the spokesman with malice. Failing this adequate explanation then Fred! will become !Fred. It may be that programmers are the only folks who get it but that’s fine.
Pilgrim on July 19, 2007 at 8:59 PM
And so it begins.
Big S on July 19, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Tancredo- Hunter 2008.
profitsbeard on July 19, 2007 at 9:15 PM
If Fred or Mitt were the nominee I would happily vote for them over Hillary. People that support Fred are not as narrow-minded as you and others would wish we were. Although it probably gives you encouragement as you make your argument.
It may come as a shock to you and some of the other arrogant, “smart than thou” ones that many people that support Fred do have an issue with how this played out. It’s true that if the spokesman spoke to early about something he knew little about then that’s a problem. Perhaps Fred didn’t give all of the details. But the bottom line is “all of the details about what exactly?”. At the end of the day it is a minor issue and one which he could very well have forgotten many of the details about. People these days want to assume bad intent and I guess I understand why. For me, this is not enough to negate his other views on important issues. He’s yet to share all of his views, and it may very well come to pass that there are opinions of his in which supporters disagree with him on.
I will say this, this is an irrelevant issue for me in comparison to the dancing Guiliani does regarding gun regulation.
Weber48IDA on July 19, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Fred! is your GOP candidate and this drives GOP elitists and baby skull crushers wild.
Abortion is the killing of innocent children—roughly 40 million since Roe v. Wade. Why do you hate babies so? Babies are really wonderful. And, they generally grow up to be responsible, wonderful people.
Except the ones that grow up supporting the crushing of babies in their mothers.
Trying to drive a wedge between Fred! and voters will not benefit Capt. Abortion for the GOP elite (Rudi). All you are doing is throwing Hill into the White House. What morons!
saved on July 19, 2007 at 9:57 PM
We shouldn’t nominate a man because he lies, but despite that fact, IF we feel he is the man for the job. Lying is part of politics. If a candidate didn’t ever lie, he would never get elected. Remember when Dukkakis said he would most likely raise your income taxes? He took a beating in the polls for that. The pundits correctly stated that a politician should never tell the truth about something like that, never tell the people what they don’t want to hear even if they know it to be true. Clinton was good that way. He only said was people wanted to hear, and the people responded positively, illustrating that point.
Somebody mentioned Goebbels. A better example would be Machiavelli, and his treatise The Prince. These truths about politics and how it is dictated by the psychology of the masses have been true for ages.
jihadwatcher on July 19, 2007 at 10:02 PM
There comes a point when it stops sounding like hyperbole and starts sounding like madness. Fredheads have stepped over that threshold.
I read Machiavelli’s The Prince. He said sometimes leaders must enter into and selectively be evil. Machiavelli had a hatred for tyrants.
Machiavelli also said that the people support a winner and quickly turn on a loser. Fred is the epitome of a record-devoid loser. He isn’t lying to soften the blows of his would-be presidency, he’s lying to cover his ass. First he denies it, then he says he’s always pro-life, then he says he doesn’t remember. One more thing jihadwatcher, if it was the tools at the MSM who gave an OK to lying on a presidential campaign, why oh why would we trust them here? Its MSM wagon circling like that which landed us with BJ Klintoon for 8 years.
This isn’t Law and Order Fred and Fredheads, there’s no production team to stop the airing if you sound hackneyed.
BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Ah, The Prince. One of my favorites.
For those offering the argument that Fred is blameless and this is all the fault of his spokesman, allow me to offer the following:
Slublog on July 19, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I have to stop doing that. I was agreeing with you and questioning HIS use of others as credible.
sorry.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 10:54 PM
So, when fred? lies to US about the man he really is, what does that do to your theory?
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:04 PM
That Doink Doink you heard was the momentum he had falling flat on its face.
The polls on realclearpolitics.com taken before this story broke show him trailing Hillary by 9%, Rudy trails her by 5%.
Bradky on July 19, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Oh, there certainly is a large group of them. They are called groupies. Ya know, like the screaming and renting of their hair, Beatles fans? Now, whether you are one of them, I do not know, only you would know that. But make no mistake, there is a very large group of ignorant fools who don’t care about anything that fred? has done except how good he was in some TV show he was on. I actually had one of them tell me he doesn’t need to act! He just shows up on set as himself! That is the height of moonbattery!
Groupies. They exist.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:10 PM
The thing I am most concerned about is Fred’s memory.
He spoke to Judith 22 times and he doesn’t remember?
JamesP on July 19, 2007 at 11:34 PM
The Fredheads will say that just proves how much like Reagan he is….
Bradky on July 19, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I dragged myself into this thread and I say “vacuous”.
Bradky, how is it that you’re one of the saner ones?
Entelechy on July 19, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Hi Entelechy,
I usually have a couple of sane moments if I time the meds with my unsweetened ice tea just right! But I did have a momentary vision of CSdeven dancing around a bonfire…
As you have noted on occasion it is still a long way till election time and much more will happen. It will be a fun run I’m sure.
Regards,
Bradky on July 19, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Hi Brad,
You said it well. The theater will be full with tragi-comedies, at the expense of our country. It’s really the theater of the absurd. The enemies must be very optimistic. Yet, who else will lead the world and into what or where? Were it not so sad it would be hilariously funny. As is, without perspective, it could be down right depressing.
Chin up though – it’s a looong way…Regards to you too,
Entelechy on July 20, 2007 at 12:20 AM
What a monster of a thread. Without having read all the comments I’m sure there is
circle-jerkingself-congratulations from the Fred haters here. Whatever.I just want all you whiners to be ready to vote Fred when he gets the nomination.
And then I’ll have been proven right.
VolMagic on July 20, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Hey Tennman,
Are you from the Volunteer State, or just really into the ‘Lake?
Big S on July 20, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Even Jesus had enemies
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Reagan trailed carter was losing to mondale, was being outmanuevered by Gorby, was sliced and diced by the press as the father of HIV, bad decorating and family values
As Fred does, Reagan just states his positions
Annoying that Fred just says how he believes and ignores those that tell others how he believes
Buttwhoopin is a comin
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 2:29 AM
sabbott – “20 hours? C’mon! I’m a consultant myself. 20 hours is nothing!”
I happen to like Fred myself, but this is JUST TOO MUCH of a straight line for me to resist.
You can’t be a little bit pregnant!
MB4 on July 20, 2007 at 4:22 AM
Another “punch line”/”story” comes to mind too.
Maybe someone else knows it too.
MB4 on July 20, 2007 at 4:25 AM
MB4
5 or 6 hours actually consulting rest were referrals and research
yes 5 hours from 15 years ago is a huge deal……….
This was not freds but a firms client
EricPWJohnson on July 20, 2007 at 4:53 AM
Unlike the Fredheads, the Romneyites will actually consider pulling the level for another Republican contender if they win the nomination.
Only someone who failed to learn the lessons of 2006 [For those who don't, we showed those RINOS good didn't we?] would stay home instead of vote for a man who would be infinitely better than The Glacier, The Messiah, or The Joker (that sociopath Edwards).
I look forward to your being proven wrong on nomination day.
BKennedy on July 20, 2007 at 6:16 AM
The hatred is strong in this one. Fred Thompsons has never lost at anything. Look at his life story. Successful acting career, financially successful, succesful at politics, trophy wife. If that is your definition of a “loser”, their could be projection at work here.
It’s disturbing, yes. There are two or three people, purportedly conservatives on this blog, who have a hatred for a conservative candidate that far exceeds their hatred for any of the leftwing socialists trying to take the Whitehouse. Their emotional response to Fred Thompson far exceeds their emotional response to anyone on the Left. Curious. Their hatred is so strong and their invective so poisonous, you would think the general election was on, and we were being visited by KOS trolls from the far left.
jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 8:08 AM
Matt Damon!
Love the one about the forgetfulness being the Reagan similarity. That is a HOOT. But I am still a fredhead because The HelMitt reminds me of Max Headroom and Rudy is just smarmy…::RUDY::.
seejanemom on July 20, 2007 at 8:17 AM
Did you just say the only choice we have is fred? or Hillary?
fred? is now Jesus? Good Grief! Besides, Obama is the Messiah, and Ron Paul is the only man who can save America, remember?
It’s becoming clear that the angst from the fred?ites is toward Rudy. That must be because Rudy is in the lead and is perceived to be freds? main hurdle to clear on his path to the coronation.
freds? real hurdle to clear is himself. His lying. His fakeries. His flip-flopping on positions. McCain/Feingold. Lobbying for scum. Lobbying against regular folks. His laziness. His cowardice. And for my friend Entelechy, his vacuousness. (love ya babe ;-) )
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Oh, I’m sorry jihadwatcher, I assumed that you understood when I said “record” I meant votes or actions that Fred has done which advanced or even remotely defended the conservative movement. As far as being a loser in the context of Machiavelli [you know, how the sentence started], the man’s best known attribute is that he pretends to be other people on TV. His current ass-covering reeks of weakness. If Fredheads want to bring up The Prince, they better be prepared to defend Fred’s rather unPrincely actions.
Successful at politics? You mean he got elected to the Senate in a state that supports his political ideology. So I guess that means he has the same credit as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trophy Wife? Yeah, whatever floats your boat. Personally I find Romney’s 30 years straight a better indicator of maritial success, but hey, if cradle robbing is your deal…
See, here’s the thing jihadwatcher. Anything Fred has done, the other candidates have done similar or better. Legislative experience isn’t the same as Executive experience and inferior as far as the highest Executive office is concerned. Financially Successful? Why hello thar Mitt “Nearly everything I touches becomes financially successful” Romney. Fred is outclassed and outgunned. I’ll vote for him if he wins the nomination, but I’m not going to put my vote behind the third banana chump when there are better options available in the primary.
BKennedy on July 20, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Corallo said what he said. He learned that he was wrong, and he fessed up. Honestly, and honorably.
Fred says what he says. He’s never tried to denied that he did it.
Can the other candidates, Dem or GOP claim complete honesty and honorable actions in their campaign strategies? (maybe Duncan Hunter)… but other than Duncan and Fred?
Point is that Fred is the one rising to the top of the pile without hardly trying. All because he’s actually being pretty honest about stuff. Interesting, no?
Lawrence on July 20, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Are you assuming that Corallo attributed a comment to freddie boy that freddie boy never said even when Corallo SAID he talked to freddie boy and freddie boy said “it never happened”?
fred? is on a bubble. A bubble filled with nothing and created by some role he played on some TV show he was on.
The light of day will pop that bubble and, oh, how mighty will be the fall.
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Ugh. Next time I’ll have to do some research before picking a moniker. Yikes!
No, I live and work in Tennessee.
Tennman on July 20, 2007 at 9:59 AM
If that is your definition of spelling, there could be government education at work here.
corona on July 20, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Exactly, except Ron Paul and John McCain! We know way too well what we are getting with McCain. I admire his stand on the Iraq war but that is the only position I agree or trust him on! He spent too much time being the MSM’s maverick and stabbing conservatives in the back!
1) McCain/Feingold
2) opposing tax cuts
3) gang of thirteen
4) Geneva Convention for terrorists
5) slamming the religious right (don’t agree with them always, but need to insult them)
Know I’m leaving some out!
SSG Fuzzy on July 20, 2007 at 10:37 AM
So, who is your conservative candidate?
SSG Fuzzy on July 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM
I do believe I’ve found the definitive quote of this whole discussion.
Tennman on July 20, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Conservative candidate…..all 10 (yes including RP)
Conservative NON-candidate…..fred? “I’m too sexy for a campaign” thompson
You call it definitive that someone would actually assert that he will vote for a guy who isn’t even a candidate?
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 11:03 AM
That was, ah say, a joke, son. Ah say, a joke. (Loosely quoted from Foghorn Leghorn.)
Tennman on July 20, 2007 at 11:14 AM
I guess I’m feeling a little froggy, ah say a little froggy today.
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I understand the hatred now on Bkennedy’s part, and perhaps the others. I read his blog. His big issue is abortion. Because Fred is not an anti-abortion zealot, and because he is so popular on Hotair, anti-abortion zealots feel compelled to take him down. Can’t have someone like that run the country.
Got to question these one-issue voters, especially if they are abortion one-issue voters. Never understood that considering there are weightier issues pressing down on the US, like the very survival of our culture. I theorize that if, say, Obama came out staunchly opposed to abortion, Bkennedy and some others would change political affiliations rather quickly. For some, abortion is the only issue that matters.
For Fred, his moderate stand on abortion is an asset (anti-recently, but lobbied otherwise in the past). That means he’s not dogmatic on the issue and the Dems will not be able to paint him as such if he gets the nomination. That works in his favor. It is one of the things that will make him so acceptable among the centrist electorate if he gets the nomination.
jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Wait, weren’t the Fredheads just going on a crusade about “MITT ROMNEY ABORTION FLIP FLOP ALERT ALL CYLINDERS!?” If I were really a one-issue voter and that issue was abortion, by what distorted logic could a Fredhead conclude I support Romney?
I don’t have any hatred for Fred Thompson. Fredheads view any response to Fred that isn’t a Fredgasm as inadequate. The criticism of Fred as a political footnote, executive experience devoid candidate whose best known stint is pretending to be a DA on TV is not “hatred,” it is cold, hard reality.
I’ll illustrate:
Q. Now that we’ve known Fred may or may not be announcing sometime in the near or far future, what are the two things Fred is best known for?
A. His stint on Law and Order and his “gaffe” on Campaign Finance Reform.
Your claims are ridiculous on their face jihadwatcher. Here I am talking about the ability to win votes from Democrats, discussing actual executive experience, and citing the new ideas of candidates, and jihadwatcher here extrapolates I am a one-issue voter. Brilliant deduction Sherlock, how do you do it?
The only one-issue voter here is jihadwatcher. The issue is Fred, and you’d better support him in the primary (even if you’re running against him) or you’re not getting jihadwatcher’s vote in the general. For Fredheads it is Fred! or Bust. Lessons of 2006 be damned. If we can’t nominate OUR candidate then it’s better to have socialists like Hillary in charge.
Oh, and technically my big issue is the commodization of human beings, which includes abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, in-vitro fertilization and “selective reduction.” Abortion is just one head on the hydra that is the devaluation of human life.
BKennedy on July 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I haven’t seen that from him. He has touched on many issues, but the over-riding one his freds? lack of qualifications.
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Completely disagree, haven’t seen that from most people supporting Fred. Most just don’t understand the hatred focused at Fred!
SSG Fuzzy on July 20, 2007 at 12:25 PM
SSG Fuzzy on July 20, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I think a lot of people feel a little bit insulted by the whole Fred! thing. He’s the archetypical “Southern Republican candidate”, but because of how he looks, acts, and sounds, rather than anything he has done. Sure, a lot of people were looking for a more conservative option in the primary, but aside from the acting, politicians like him are a dime a dozen. The other three leading Republican candidates have done some absolutely extraordinary (good) things in their careers, before and during their time in office, and may represent one of the most accomplished primary fields we’ve had in a long time. So far, Fred has chosen not to engage them in policy debates, and seems to be running on personality alone. From his point of view, that may be a wise choice. From my point of view, it’s kinda lame.
Big S on July 20, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Let me save everyone some time. I feel it is my duty to wrap up this week of Fred bashing, and still have time for a few toddies.
Google this: fred thompson democratic
The first item on the search tells you how wrong Fred Bashers are, skip that one, its too truthful and not fun.
You will find all of the information that the Fred bashers use. They google, then cut and paste, with no idea where (whence?) the information comes from. Of course it comes from democratic sources out to destroy each candidate one at a time (reference the item I said to skip). But it is good stuff, with a lot of cool references from Kerry supporters, Estrich, the usual honest suspects with absolutly no agenda.
This is a cute quote from the Richmond Democrat. I am sure some of the posters know about this project. I have seen the quotes from it displayed over the past couple of weeks.
Here is another one to really help you get through the weekend. This is the bible for all Fred bashers.
Look at the time I saved all of the bashers, and look at how much more information for the Fredites.
You will tell, by all of this information how evvvillll Fred Thompson is, what a liar he is, what an opportunist he is, a dirty lobbyist, flip-flopper; asbestos loving abortion loving, philandering, bad actor lobbyist. If his mom knew how he would turn out, she would have aborted him. I mean, you have to believe MediaMatters, they wouldn’t lie.
Your welcome, gin and tonic please, it is after noon on my coast.
right2bright on July 20, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Here is another one to really help you get through the weekend. This is the bible for all Fred bashers.
This link didn’t take, but here it is
right2bright on July 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM
I can’t speak for others, but I neither hate nor even dislike him. I have simply felt it my responsibility to know as much about the candidates as possible to make an educated decision. And I respect those that come to different conclusions then I might, if so done honestly. I don’t respect blanket condemnation of the man anymore than I respect blanket approval. And I had honestly hoped that he would be more than it appears to me that he is. It is what it is.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I agree with what you are saying.I neither dislike, distrust or like Fred Thompson. I had always thought him to be intelligent, erudite, and following my political philosophies. I wasn’t too concerned about his lobbying efforts and stance on abortion in years past. We all have changed stances and values in years past. I must concur with those who feel he is less than candid or open about this issue in this particular thread. But to have let this discussion go as far as it did and with individuals having such a vitriolic sense of disgust for the man, surprised me. I never was planning to vote for Mr Thompson, I’ve consistently supported Duncan Hunter. But enough is enough.
MNDavenotPC on July 20, 2007 at 1:24 PM
I’ve never wasted my time searching for dirt on Fred and wouldn’t trust Media Matters if they were telling me Jesus Christ is Lord [It would probably just be a tempory "injection" of faith].
The Bible for Fredheads can be summed up like this:
The rules of Fredmania:
1. NEVER bring up Fred’s achievements. He doesn’t really have any, it’s better to focus on how awesome Fred Thompson is.
2. When criticized, never address Fred’s credentials, but attack your opponent’s primary choice instead. Obfuscate here as much as possible.
3. When it looks bad, move the goalposts and talk about how Fred criticizers get their information from liberal sources just trying to drag Fred down.
4. If all else fails, call them one-issue candidates, RINOS who don’t want a REAL conservative like Fred Thompson, and/or hateful for not engaging in Fred worship.
5. Always remember. Any media attack on Fred is a sign of fear. Any conservative attack on Fred is a sign of fear. In fact, anything that remotely bashes Fred in any way is done purely out of fear.
Honesty, It isn’t that I wouldn’t vote for Fred, its just that his supporters are so maddeningly one-track to a point beyond parody.
BKennedy on July 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM
MNDavenotPC on July 20, 2007 at 1:24 PM
The term is FDS (Fred! Derangement Syndrome)
jdawg on July 20, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Hmmmmm that’s a new one for my PDR I like it
MNDavenotPC on July 20, 2007 at 2:49 PM
I have said time and time again, I could care less about Fred, but I do wonder why so many “conservatives” parrot the liberal left wing websites that post about Fred.
What happens, is that some get so adament about the disgust about Fred, that one eventually takes up the challenge to quite them down. If I, and others, want that vitriol we would cruise some of those sites I mention. Reasnoable debate, please…but when the words like “he always lies” he “can never be trusted”, he supported death by asbestos, etc. it gets a little boorish, it is redundant to the liberal websites.
His record has been posted, look at some of his websites, they have a list (on excel) of every one of his votes. His record (mostly, (greatly) conservative and Republican) is apparent, it throws rational cold water on almost every critisism thrust on him by a few hard core bashers. In other words, one little excel spreadsheet put most of the critique of him to bed. The supporters don’t need to hammer away, they just show you the way.
right2bright on July 20, 2007 at 2:51 PM
My moronic thought of today:
I detest everyone who generalizes. ;-)
Tennman on July 20, 2007 at 3:08 PM
If we were to go by your logic, no conservative could ever criticize another conservative for his faults just because a liberal sees and criticizes the same behavior.
Why don’t you go over to KOS or Huffpo if that’s the way you want to see things. That’s what they do, and frankly, that’s what the groupies do too.
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I think it’s time we interject some reason into this issue of freds? supporters.
We ALL know that fred has supporters who are as normal as any other candidates supporters. But we also know, that fred? has a huge following of groupies who are as crazy nuts over fred? as the Ron Paul supporters are over him.
In the future, when someone is referring to the irrational behavior of freds? supporters, please understand that to refer to the crazy groupies and not the normal supporters.
Then we can do away with this straw man argument where people accuse critics of freds? of broad stroking ALL fred?ites as whack-a-doodles.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled fred? Bash-a-Thon.
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Well, I detest everyone who generalizes everyone who generalizes anyone. Nnnaaaaah. So take that! :-)
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 3:19 PM
See, thats the thing. Nobody has been parroting left-wing points like the asbestos nonsense.
My criticism of Fred all along is basically that he’s nothing special. He’s a cookie cutter Conservative Republican Senator. Fred’s deviation is CFR, McCain’s is shamnesty, otherwise they are basically interchangable.
The thing is, I don’t want a cookie cutter Republican Senator as the Republican nominee for President of the United States when I have so many better choices. I call it as it is. Fred is nothing special. Fred takes the position that is safe with the conservative base. That’s all fine and good, but I’m not going to pretend he’s some great conservative juggernaut when he’s never actually spearheaded anything. When you’re a cookie cutter Senator you can afford to follow and do what’s safe. When you’re President you’re expected to be a leader, not just be there to “do things only a President can do.”
Fred isn’t dynamic. Fred doesn’t take action. The only role he’s ever had as a leader of anything substantial was provided for him by a TV producer. Why would I choose a man who pretended to be a New York DA on TV over a man who actually was an Associate AG of New York and a Mayor or a man who was Governor of a fairly populated state? (For the record, Giuliani doesn’t appeal to me more than Fred, but there’s no doubting his executive experience is superior to Fred’s.)
Fred is all fine and good, but he’s no demigod or idol.
BKennedy on July 20, 2007 at 3:21 PM
As I had mentioned quite awhile ago, my concern is that we push another Dole into the arena assuring our defeat. So now that Thompson has been vetted so thoroughly, let’s get down to business.
MNDavenotPC on July 20, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Yeah. I completely agree, there is space for candidates to change their minds, mature intellectually, and so on. I encourage it!
Everyone has a set of criteria that they apply to determine who they will vote for and so support is given variably along a time line. As such, Fred didn’t lose me until this week really.
From day one my big issue was McCain-Feingold, and Unseen gave me reason to give him space there. But the suggestion of replacement for the bill is no limits, full disclosure. Now we are told that he has put off his announcement so as to forgo disclosure of his campaign fundraising. The irony is not lost on me. Then this whole event, the manner and the meaning are also not lost on me. That has pretty much settled my mind.
Lastly, yes. I like Duncan Hunter quite a lot. If I were forced to vote today, I would pull the lever for him. He appears a very consistent conservative, and I get the sense that both constitutional and national security issues would be under thoughtful care with him. I could be wrong of course:)
I don’t care what the left says about him. I don’t need them to do my thinking for me. I’ve always thought, and still do, that the majority of the populace tends to think conservatively. I have no intention of acting like a scared minority party – This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man – as the great poet said.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 3:41 PM
MNDavenotPC on July 20, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I think my point, and BKennedy’s, is that we sense a bit of Dole-ishness in Thompson. Sure, they are both good guys, but there are better options.
Big S on July 20, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Big S on July 20, 2007 at 3:42 PM
You can put yourself in the same category if you like, but one of you deserves to be taken seriously, the other not-so-much.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Hmmm…Uh… Oh well.
Big S on July 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM
I do, but I didn’t get it from a lefty blog.
csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Just an aside. I’ve enjoyed our conversations and will always take you seriously.
Back O/T
I don’t even see how the comparison to Dole can be made. Dole never had a groundswell of populist support before his candidacy was announced, and he was just a little bit scary. I remember more Dan Akkroyd’s rendition of him in the presidential debates, saying, “If you don’t agree with me, I’m going to push this pencil through your neck.”
Fred’s truly likable, honest, and a real conservative. That, of course, is only my opinion.
Tennman on July 20, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Exactly, you are stuck on those notes. I read your blog. That’s your right, everyone is entitled to their politics, but most conservatives care more about who is going to fight PC-enabled islamism, not who is going to rehash roe vs wade.
As for me, Rudy is not a bad choice either. But I think Fred is more the go-to man on the issues that matter. The only candidate I dislike is McCain. But I don’t spend any time knocking the other candidates, whereas several posters here can’t get off the “Fred-is-a-phoney” bandwagon, just as if they have money riding on him not getting the nomination.
To that end, we are constantly reminded of those devasting points as to why Fred should not get the nomination:
1. He doesn’t really drive an old pick-up truck.
2. He worked as a lobbyist
3. He has a pick-up truck that is not real transportation.
4. He worked as a lobbyist
5. He has a good looking wife
6. He doesn’t always drive an old pick-up truck
7. He’s lazy
8. He is slow to declare
9. His wife is good looking
10. His red pick-up truck is not his daily driver
11. He hasn’t declared yet
12. He worked as a lobbyist
13. He’s lazy
14. That red pick-up truck has low mileage
15. He’s slow to declare
For a guy the media is trying to sink, this guy is about as clean as they come.
But, really, as one of his lines in Hunt For Red October said:
What’s all the hubbub about?
jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM
I appreciate the generosity; allow me to return the sentiment.
Spirit of 1776 on July 20, 2007 at 4:12 PM
jihadwatcher on July 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Yeah, but you forgot to mention the red pickup truck ;-}
jdawg on July 20, 2007 at 4:35 PM
No that is your logic, I never said that. What I said…now read slowly and you can move your lips, the Fred bashers are using the exact same arguments as the liberal sites that you suggest I go to. You (generic) are parroting them. You may or may not read them, but you are getting your info from the same sources, and come to the same conclusion. That is fine with me, just man up to it and say you agree with the liberals on this one point…Fred is a loser.
You guys are getting more serious about this and losing any sense of humor…just like who? The fact that you can read and come to the same exact conclusions as hundreds of lefty blogs, shows how insightful you are. I am proud of you.
Your slam about me being a groupie or I should go to huffpo or whoever doesn’t affect me. I expect the name calling, it is part of you m.o.
And remind BK or your rules of debate, if you said it and he is on the same side he owns what you say, and you own what he says (which puts you on the short stick, as they say). So he also has been upset by Freds loving asbestos, by your rules of engagement (defacto), you said it, he owns it.
Have a great weekend, enjoy the “Hate the fred? rally” in Washington this weekend. I hear you are the keynote speaker, along with MediaMatters.
That sapphire is tastin good, fresh lime…it’s Friday, 4:30…I am giving everyone west of here (NC) the rest of the day off.
Adios, and hasta la bye bye.
right2bright on July 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »