Uh oh: Fred’s fundraising down “markedly,” says NBC; Update: Fred’s research director resigns — after a week and a half
posted at 1:35 pm on July 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
They’d hoped for $5 million in June. They’ll end up with $3 million for June and July, due in part to voters’ passions cooling as Fred drags his feet on getting in. NBC claims the formal announcement is set tentatively for September 4th in Nashville but can they really wait that long if donations are already down? Probably: it seems the social cons are in love, Mitt’s prodigious fundraising notwithstanding.
That’s not the only scoop from NBC:
Some sources describe the role of the presumed candidate’s wife, Jeri, as vast and powerful. Sources say “she’s integrally involved in every decision” and that Fred Thompson has “set it up so everything goes through her.” Critically, that was cast as “running it like a congressional campaign” and from the “kitchen table.”…
At present, those close to the planning say Jeri is involved in hiring, salaries, schedule, office assignments at the two headquarters, and small details like the color of bumper stickers. Some sources defend her, adding that “it’s easy to say she’s controlling things.” Sources describe that she, like many in Washington, knows many people in politics. They acknowledge Jeri meets with and interviews senior staff candidates and is clearly a key adviser.
I’m not sure how that shakes out vis-a-vis her bogus image as a trophy wife. If they don’t want people knowing how big a role she plays then the trophy wife nonsense is a welcome smokescreen. But … why wouldn’t they want people to know? Does it hurt his image as large and in charge if it looks like his wife is stage-managing him?
Take that as your exit question. Then scroll down to the end of this Carl Cameron piece and see for yourself just how much influence she allegedly has.
Update: “You are not a real conservative, sir!”
Update: See-Dubya attributes the cash falloff to the slowdown in Fred’s radio commentaries, which haven’t had a new entry since July 3rd.
Update: Hmmm.
The day after his would-be campaign manager was replaced, Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson has another senior staff position to refill.
J.T. Mastranadi was hired just a week and a half ago to be the campaign’s director of research. He resigned this morning, a friend of his said. The friend said that Mastranadi was “fed up” with the “lack of structure” and was unclear about his role in the coming campaign.
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 3 Next »
Guardian on July 25, 2007 at 3:43 PM
To be fair, you made an assertion about atheists, something that (from the context) sets them apart from other groups of people. The only other group left, that I can see, is believers.
I mean if I were to say, “believers just naturally know how to take care of and love their kids.” Wouldn’t you be asking the same, if opposite, question that Spirit asked?
Esthier on July 25, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I’m pretty sure Tanya was being sarcastic.
Esthier on July 25, 2007 at 3:44 PM
No, it’s not the same thing because atheists are doubters by definition. Believers’ parenting skills aren’t part of their basic definition. (Though many are great parents, obviously.)
“Believers are not inherently doubters” wouldn’t necessarily be the opposite, in the sense that “all cats are mammals” isn’t the opposite of “all mammals are cats.”
Tanya on July 25, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Seriously? Seriously. Ok, let’s start at the beginning, there’s this thing called sarcasm. I know that’s a big word for you, but try to keep up.
Tanya on July 25, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Can’t anyone just give Fred! a chance? Look do you actually think he wants a turn debating at a You Tube/CNN sponsored Debate with an “Animated Snowman” asking dumb questions about global warming?
I think he will run when the time is right. Be patient!
kiakjones on July 25, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Alright, going to pick out some bathroom crap with my wife. Once again another thrilling afternoon of Hot Air participation is about to be brought down from its precipice of excitement, into the dark valley of mundane living, ‘Oh how the mighty have fallen!”
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Prove what? That Romney ran for governor and Senator as a pro-choice candidate? I didn’t really think that was debatable. What kind of abortion restrictions did he even attempt to get passed as governor? I certainly can’t find any.
Or would you dispute that he was in favor of Roe v Wade before he was against it? Or that Fred was endorsed by National Right to Life in ‘94? Hardly consistant with your claim that he campaigned as a pro-choice candidate.
Is Fred a pro-life “purist”? No, doesn’t seem that he is or ever was. However, he didn’t completely reverse his stated views depending upon what office he was running for.
But you go ahead and maintain that FlipFlop Mitt campaigned for governor one way, but governed another. That should remove everyone’s concerns.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 3:55 PM
I know! All I was trying to suggest was that maybe atheists need more from Fred than he’s giving us, and suddenly I’m the antichrist.
Go me!! I’m the new csdeven! Fear me!
Tanya on July 25, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Like my grandpappy used to say, fish don’t fry in the kitchen, beans don’t burn on the grill.
Allahpundit on July 25, 2007 at 3:59 PM
If Fred supports open borders I hope he doesn’t run. Go away, Fred!
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 4:01 PM
No of course not. As has been pointed out to you by me and many others over and over, you do not run as a hard right conservative in the bluest state in the union. This is not debatable. Even Reagan had a more pro-abortion record than did Romney when he was not only running but actually governing CA. The only way, the ONLY way to get elected as a Republican in MA is to run as a moderate and then be an outstanding candidate who can pull in many Independents and Dems. Something Fred didn’t need to do when he ran in what is at best a purple state. He could have run as a pro-life conservative under the wing of Ronald Reagan. He chose not to.
What I want you to prove is that Rmoney’s record as governor was not consistently pro-life. You have often said judge the record not the rhetoric so go ahead and show me what Romney did as governor that would demonstrate he was anymore pro-choice in his job, a job where you actually have to enforce abortion laws, unlike Fred, than the great man himself.
I have shown you examples, more than once, of Fred running as pro-choice and then acting differently in the Senate. That is your definition of flip flopping not mine.
You can’t have it both ways, either the record matters or the rhetoric matters. Unless you’re a flip flopper.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Heh. Does the bible belt have an east side?
Tanya on July 25, 2007 at 4:11 PM
It means absolutely nothing at all. It is the ultimate moral, ethical, and philosophical cop-out.
I have more respect for fervently pro-choice liberals than I do for conservatives who take the logically impossible and obviously politically expedient “personally pro-life but pro-choice” position.
If you are pro-life because you believe life begins at conception – it is impossible to reconcile that position with “politically pro-choice.” It’s either a life or it isn’t. Choose. And choose wisely.
I could be convinced to vote for a true pro-choice conservative … especially if he will be nominating constructionist justices, with the net result being pro-life anyway. And I can at least understand the liberal view: they’ve convinced them self that a fetus is not alive – thus there is no harm. They’re woefully wrong, but logically consistent.
This position – this middle-ground, appeal to everybody, straddle the fence horse-shit – is an abomination. It’s a sign of either weak character, or a weak intellect that can’t understand simple logic, or a willingness to put politics above principle.
And if this is really the position of Fred! and Rudy … I won’t be voting for either of them.
Professor Blather on July 25, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Laws in MA skewed pro-choice. Mitt acknowledged that and vowed not to change them, and didn’t. I’m unaware of any attempt- even a futile one- of trying to restrict abortion in any way at all. Enlighten me if I’m missing something. By leaving a pro-choice status quo in place, he effectively supported that status quo.
And yes, to win in MA you most likely do have to run as a moderate. By the same token, to win the Republican nomination you have to run as a conservative. To win the general election candidates often move towards the center.
So which Mitt are we supposed to believe? Pro-choice Mitt or pro-life Mitt? The Mitt opposed to Roe v Wade being overturned, or the one in favor of it? NRA critic Mitt or NRA member Mitt? The Mitt who distanced himself from Reagan’s legacy or the one that calls him a hero?
Seriously, is there really any special reason to support Mitt if one isn’t a MA resident backing the home state candidate? All his supporters ever seem to want to do is bash Fred rather than telling us why he’d make the best candidate.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Did you read this article?
kiakjones on July 25, 2007 at 4:31 PM
He supports enforcement first. He’s said that we need to take care of the border first, then deal with the immigrants already here.
Tennman on July 25, 2007 at 4:39 PM
1. For all those going hammer and tongs on the abortion issue, you might want to review the Reagan record in California (or the first Bush record, for that matter). You’ll be hard pressed to find a model of purity. Any of the announced or prospective GOP candidates will be more pro-life than any of the Dems. And at the moment, the ‘08 environment will be sufficiently challenging for the GOP that no one in their right mind should be anticipating a big wave of victory for the pro-life movement. So let’s have a little perspective.
2. Pining for Newt? Have we forgotten the vast amount the MSM invested in successfuly demonizing the man? I would bet his unfavorables in polls approach those of HRC. Maybe unfair, but politics ain’t beanbag.
3. Fred!s fundraising has probably dropped mostly because he keeps delaying the announcement, after tapping most all those who gave to encourage a run. Probably not a big deal.
The dog days of summer just seem to provoke this sort of hysteria over minutia. It’s like the conservative blog version of the MSM gushing over Cidy Sheehan back in Crawford, because there was no other story around. Let’s all get an ice cream sandwich or a push-pop and chill out.
Karl on July 25, 2007 at 4:39 PM
He vetoed the RU-486 bill. He vetoed a stem cell bill. Not much more he realistically could have done in a state where abortion rights are fought for as hard as anywhere else in the country. There are veto proof majorities in both the MA House and Senate so it’s pretty tough to actually get a lot accomplished at the state level but to say he didn’t try or wasn’t praised by right to life groups is wrong.
So which Mitt are we supposed to believe? Pro-choice Mitt or pro-life Mitt? The Mitt opposed to Roe v Wade being overturned, or the one in favor of it? NRA critic Mitt or NRA member Mitt? The Mitt who distanced himself from Reagan’s legacy or the one that calls him a hero?
Fair question and one which can be made about Fred as well. Fred has done a bunch of flipping himself. So look at their records both in public life and private. Who has a more distinguished executive career? Who has actually lived a life of what most would call conservative values? Who has proven he can win Indpendent and Democratic votes? Who has actually fought on the front lines over issues like gay marriage (and if you think Romney didn’t, ask Excitable Andi Sullivan)? Who is a superb public speaker and debater? Who has already demonstrated that he has the energy to raise a ton of money and actually campaign? Who hasn’t written unconstitutional legislation which has enabled the Dems to raise hundreds of millions through dubious 527’s to the point they are crushing Republicans in fund raising? Who just hired a guy with terrible credentials on immigration to be his campaign manager because he is a great DC insider?
There’s a reason Romney has won both debates so far. Look at his record of achievement and watch him in action, real action not some contrived NRO podcast. He’ll never agree with you on the Assault Weapons Ban so if that’s a deal breaker for you then don’t vote for him. To me, he is by far the most qualified guy to be the chief executive of the most demanding job in the world, and I think he can win the general.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 4:47 PM
What? Oh my gosh! I can’t vote for Fred! now!!! How awful! Yeah right.
Vaporman87 on July 25, 2007 at 4:47 PM
That is what we should do with every candidate and non-candidate.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 4:54 PM
My 6 year old has a longer attention span than you people.
He still gets my vote simply because he refuses to bow to the early campaign nonsense the rest of the candidates did.
The world has become such that real people of principle are scorned on a regular basis.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
unamused on July 25, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Yeah… after publicly supporting approval of the RU-486 pill. Gee, why would he have changed his mind? Oh yeah- it was in mid 2005, just after he decided to run for President and subsequent birth of Mitt 2.0.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Hmmm… you make a very good point.
I wonder if atheists understand how this has become a political liability for advancing their secular viewpoints?
Lawrence on July 25, 2007 at 5:25 PM
I’ve read it now, (thanks), and in the past I listened to his ABC radio piece regarding Shamnesty several times, and I’m still not exactly clear where Fred stands on national sovereignty issues. I don’t have a transcript handy but I recall several semi conditional statements that made me wonder just exactly how strong he really was on the issue. Did he even write that opinion piece? I don’t know.
Here’s a small excerpt from the article you linked to:
Now he has appointed Spencer Abraham, who has received an award from La Raza and is a big name in the open borders crowd, (I’ve read), and my doubts about Fred now exceed my interest.
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Always have. And then factor in electability in the general election.
Gives me Romney in 1st place, Rudy in 2nd and every body else a distant 3rd.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 5:31 PM
In my opine, Fred’s getting in early on Sept 4th. He’s smart enough to know none of the current republican campaigns will still be around as of Jan 1.
Griz on July 25, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Dude, he hired him as campaign advisor; it’s not like he just named him Campaign Immigration Advisor or his running mate. Fred ain’t perfect, but worrying about the views of his campaign staff is a bit silly.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
The thing is though, atheists are only doubters by definition when it comes to a religious belief.
There’s nothing else to them (and nothing else that even connects them) to assert anything else about them.
They only doubt one thing and do not, as a general rule, doubt anything else.
Esthier on July 25, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Folks,
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Nor is there any such thing as a perfect person. Everyone has something in his/her past that probably isn’t very appealing.
I’m waiting to see what happens when he actually announces, then I’ll make my decision.
jdawg on July 25, 2007 at 5:55 PM
So, just for the record, it’s been proved that Thompson lobbied for a pro-abortion group and he has now hand-picked a La Raza award winner to run his campaign.
Any thoughts?
tad on July 25, 2007 at 3:03 PM
A savvy move on Jeri Thompsons part. Given all the recent rhetoric from Hispanics about backlash for the shamnesty defeat, a high profile La Raza favorite is just the ticket!
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Sorry, my faith belongs to God, not to a man.
You didn’t think Fred was getting the exclamation treatment for no reason did you?
To be clear though, I’m not firmly behind or against Fred. Even as a Christian I want to at least see the guy make a decision and announce.
Esthier on July 25, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Except that this is the same group that protests against Bush without realizing that he was on their side on this one.
I don’t see the genius in trying to appeal to them without having a D behind your name.
Esthier on July 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I don’t think it’s silly at all. I already had reservations about Fred on this issue based upon his qualified statements in that ABC radio piece, but in light of Abraham’s appointment my concerns are heightened. I now think Fred’s opposition to shamnesty was more likely due to political expediency than personal conviction.
Fred will have to convince me otherwise.
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Based on your logic Hillary hasen’t got a chance. heh heh….I switched from a Fred!? to a Fred? yesterday, based on the news about Spencer Abraham, an open borders supporter, being his new CM. I’ll consider Fred again once I hear the unambiguous details of his position on national sovereignty and after he appears in a debate. Until then, I’m through with Fred.
Newt/Hunter!?
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 1:51 PM
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I think that the $ will come in once he declares. Who wants to give to a non-candidate?
Mojave Mark on July 25, 2007 at 6:07 PM
He should have just gone all the way and hired Ted Kennedy. Ted could have seranaded them with Spanish lullabies.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I don’t see the genius in trying to appeal to them without having a D behind your name.
Esthier on July 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Considering the Dems current front runners I got two words for you racism and sexism.
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 6:13 PM
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Damn I’ll get a memo off right away. Never mind. Have you heard Kennedy sing!?!?
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I knew La Raza was a racist group but I wasn’t aware they were sexist.
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Oh yes, and much more. I’ve seen the Kennedy clan up close and personal for much of my life. I even saw the fat bastich on his boat one day in a pair of shorts and something that looked like a bed sheet but it could have been a t-shirt.
Scary.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I knew La Raza was a racist group but I wasn’t aware they were sexist.
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Machismo personified.
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Same here, but remember, we have the attention span of a 5 year old.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 6:51 PM
They are believers that there is no God and they have no hesitation at all about it.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Look up his Senate record- he’s definately not an Open Borders / Amnesty kind of guy, and voted against amnesty before. Some of his opponents have pointed out that he voted for a bill that granted amnesty to Cuban and Nicaraguan illegals, but that provision was snuck into a spending bill that passed 99-1.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to as qualified statements- he’s been pretty clear on having a “secure the borders first” stance.
If the true position of any of the front-runners should be questioned, it would be Rudy- he reinstated the “sanctuary city” policy of NYC (even sued the federal government to keep it), and his initial criticism of the amnesty bill wasn’t concern about the amnesty, but to nitpick the ID and record-keeping provisions that weren’t much different than what he himself proposed. I’ve no doubt that Rudy would’ve voted for shamnesty if he were a Senator.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Is it a bad thing that people care about politics?
I’m actually not sure the assesment that “nobody cared much at this point” is true. I’m guessing that people cared about politics, but couldn’t get enough information about candidates early enough to decide anything 18 months away from the general election. Now, with the internet playing a larger role, the minority who cares a lot ( a very voccal minority at that) canget the information they want very easily, and candidates have to jump in in order to prevent opponents from defining them before they can define themselves. Maybe Ol’ Fred, the “internet candidate” on the (R) side didn’t understand this as well as the others, and is beginning to suffer the consequences. If he’s going to run, he should get in ASAP.
Big S on July 25, 2007 at 7:04 PM
That is what we should do with every candidate and non-candidate.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 4:54 PM
You realize, don’t you, that this means we should all be looking at the “records both in public life and private” of everyone, including yourself… right?
Barry Kearns on July 25, 2007 at 7:05 PM
bleh… nested block quotes for the loss.
A preview feature would not go amiss, ya know.
Barry Kearns on July 25, 2007 at 7:06 PM
That is the wisest course of action, especially for a guy who refuses to be vetted. fred? talks, talks, talks, but rarely has he even done anything.
I’ll tell you what I want to see….how many votes did fred? NOT vote on during his 8 years in the senate? Did he purposely miss some key votes on abortion or immigration? That would be as telling as what he did vote on.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Ya think havin’ two building fall on your head might change your thinkin’? I give full credence to any flip that flops after 9/11.
tommylotto on July 25, 2007 at 7:10 PM
The prominent role of Jeri…
Just a ploy to justify the fact that he is going to pay her most of the money he is raising right now? He can’t give it all to his sons.
tommylotto on July 25, 2007 at 7:12 PM
No, I don’t. You’ll have to explain yourself.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 7:14 PM
“I love the smell of ‘Allahpundit fear’ in the morning, afternoon, and evening.” Everything Fred just makes that aroma ooze. The way I see it, any man that can make people ooze fear like sap from a pine tree deserves to be President. Yeah, reminds me of the fear the Iranians had of RR on that historical day he took the OATH. It was inspriring to see how that fear caused the Iranians leadership to be good little ‘mullahs’ for both terms. Dang, forgot to mention that the same fear brought down the Soviet Union.
Lets examine the Rudy and Mitt fear factors on a scale of 1 – 10:
Rudy: Mafia 10, rest of the world 0.
Mitt: 0
Helloyawl on July 25, 2007 at 7:15 PM
That wont matter to the groupies.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Yep. As soon as I run for president I expect to have my political and professional experience reviewed and scrutinized. I’ll let you know when I announce.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Turns out, one of those hecklers is a big-time RonPaul fan:
http://houston911truth.org/2007/06/07/think-different-ron-paul-for-president/
From: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/234825.php
jdawg on July 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM
So, pointing out facts about Fred’s professional background = fear.
Check.
Slublog on July 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM
The elephant in the room with Romney is his Momonism. Evangelicals simply will not turn out for him. To ignite the base they need somebody else like, oh I dunno… Fred.
Mojave Mark on July 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Mojave Mark on July 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
I’m not so much concerned about his Mormonism. He just seems too… oily for my tastes. Just too slick – like some kinda Massachusetts politician.
Oh, wait, he IS a Massachusetts politician.
jdawg on July 25, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Lions,Tigers and Bears come Mitt that too!
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 7:38 PM
So what your saying is that evangelicals are small minded bigots? Interesting. So much for all that Christian love and understanding.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Fred’s ABC radio commentary, (which I just listened to again), is all about securing the border. He doesn’t mention anything about other factors that are even more important, IMO. What about entry/exit verification? What about workplace enforcement? I’m for securing the borders but that alone is not going to solve the problem of illegal aliens invading our country. What about those already here or who get in through other means?
When Fred calls for securing the border in the commentary is he calling for a fence, for cameras and technology, or what specifically? He’s very vague. If he were POTUS and completed his task of securing the border using whatever unspecified means, what would he do then? Would he support or appose amnesty? How important is the English language to him in government and in public education? Does he support the “melting pot” concept, or would he amnesty every illegal already in the country in spite of the fact that many of them are foreign nationals that have to intention of melting and will remain loyal to their home countries?
Listen to the radio commentary again. It’s well done and sounds great but there’s very little substance to it. When I add Abraham’s appointment on top of that, I have too many doubts to consider myself a Fred!? any longer.
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 7:45 PM
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM
I don’t believe that’s what he’s saying, and I think you know that.
But a lot of Evangelicals are not comfortable with Mormonism. And a lot of them simply will not vote for him because of that. Just like people won’t support Fred because he did 3.3 hrs of lobbying/consulting for a pro-abort group over a 14 month period 16 years ago.
jdawg on July 25, 2007 at 7:45 PM
The elephant in the room with Fred? is that he’s a liar and an opportunistic fraud with no relevant experience, just like so many other washington insiders. Honest people simply won’t turn out for him. To ignite the base they need somebody else with honsesty and experience, someone like, oh I dunno… Mitt Romney.
BKennedy on July 25, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Except he didn’t reverse position after 9/11, if at all- the policy remained with no attempt to change it; NYC remains a sanctuary city today. And of course it doesn’t explain why he didn’t have a problem with the amnesty provided by the more recent shamnesty bill.
If he’s changed position at all, it was due only to public backlash from the shamnesty bill- Rudy is and always has been weak on immigration and would back another amnesty bill without hesitation.
Right before he passed more gun control, banned ferrets, banned strip clubs, and appointed a couple of mobster types to the cabinet.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 7:48 PM
You keep trying to frame freds? work on the issue of abortion. It isn’t about abortion. It’s about his lying about it, poor campaigning, or memory. I haven’t seen many evangelicals criticize him for his lobbying.
He’s a liar and a lobbyist. Those are freds? two biggest hurdles.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 7:49 PM
I love the smell of thoughtful examination of facts resulting in a logical conclusion in the early evening. It smells like….common sense.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 7:49 PM
So, the base is a bunch of narrow minded bigots who want to nominate a pastor instead of the CinC?
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
jdawg-
I reject that comparison and I think you, in your heart, do as well. One is adherence to a faith that is generations old in his family. A faith, that while you might not agree with or follow, is a valid one and has been followed by numerous people in both public and private life. To reject someone strictly on that basis is bigotry plain and simple. I will be extremely disappointed in Evangelicals if they won’t vote for Romeny merely on this basis.
I personally don’t care that Fred lobbied on behalf of an abortion rights group. Abortion is not a hot button issue for me and it won’t be settled until Roe is overturned anyway. But he flat out lied about it because he knows it will upset a large portion of his base. That, I do care about. He chose to lobby, that’s fine. He chose to lie, that isn’t.
I don’t care about politicians changing their positions, as I have said, if none did, we would now have amnesty. I hope more change their position on the surge. But I don’t like being flat out lied to. I can’t imagine you do either.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 7:56 PM
That should have been….
criticize him for his abortion lobbying.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 7:57 PM
ROFLMAO… honesty? Romney? That’s funny stuff right there. Think he’ll have time to campaign when hunting season comes around, him being a “lifelong hunter” and all? Maybe he should spend some time at the range first, since he’s a gun owner. Or at least his son in law is. Or something.
Maybe when he gets back from not hunting he can explain his little white lie about when and how he changed his position on abortion.
I don’t like Rudy either, but at least he’s reasonably honest. Romney may very well be the most dishonest Republican to run for the nomination in decades.
Romney makes the Clintons look normal.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 7:59 PM
This is exactly why people have a problem with Rudy. Either he’s full of Shi’ite, or he believes life is being sacrificed yet doesn’t have the balls to stand up to it.
However you try to exaggerate Fred’s role in any lobbying for abortion, Rudy is much more dangerous is this regard.
You are not kidding anyone.
Weber48IDA on July 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Considering freddie boy the lying faker is worse than Mitt! supposedly is, he makes the Clinton’s look like saints.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Please provide a quote where Fred denied that he lobbied the group.
Oh, you mean he lied because a member of his campaign staff may have lied or misspoke? Goose, meet gander:
“Gov. Romney has always stood on the side of life…”
Well, I guess except when he wasn’t.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM
So then you have the exact same issue with Romney…and of course, Fred because this is the same position they ran on.
If you want to get all high and mighty, you should support Rudy. He is the only one who has stayed consistent on that position. But you don’t. You want to ignore Fred’s position because it messes up your reason for supporting him.
You aren’t kidding even yourself.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 8:08 PM
And you were so close…..
A spokesman for his pac not his campaign staff but let’s not let facts get in the way.
He has always stood on the side of life in his personal beliefs. He was elected in a pro-choice state and he swore to uphold the laws of the state. Just as Fred ran as a pro-choice candidate eventhough he claimed to be personally pro-life. I can keep pointing out the facts to you but you are never going to listen.
Just vote Fred and be happy.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 8:15 PM
And the kicker is Fred was pro-choice in a red state. Looks like this new “was always pro-life” pandering doesn’t sound familiar to Tennessians.
Romney promised not to alter the laws in Massachusetts. He spent his term curtailing pro-abortion legislation, including embryonic stem cell research. He kept his promise not to change existing laws. He blocked to the best of his ability measures to expand it. Considering Massachusetts has a Democratic supermajority, Mitt excercised the full extent of whatever power he had. What power did Fred utilize as Senator for any conservative cause? Uh… err… uh… Campaign Finance Reform… no wait that’s bad! Err… I dunno.
BKennedy on July 25, 2007 at 8:32 PM
I guess Romney though he was the Governor of Nevada. You know ‘what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas’ Mitt is on record pleging support for the gay agenda in Mass. just sayin….Remember Clintons first official act as President was to allow gays in the military. Not good Mitt not good.
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Romney took a pro-gay position on another hot-button issue during the Senate campaign: the ban on gay people participating in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). During an Oct. 25 debate Romney was asked about the Scouts’ policy. He answered, “”I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue,” according to the Globe. He then added, “”I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” At the time Romney served on the executive council of BSA, and a spokesperson for the organization criticized Romney in an Oct. 27 Globe article for opposing the official BSA policy.
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Except that he didn’t. Fred ran as pro-life, endorsed by the National Right to Life group as such, and voted pro-life. Romney was personally and politically pro-choice, using the personal story of a relative dying after an illegal abortion to explain his beliefs. There’s almost no parallel between FlipFlop Mitt and Fred on this.
Hollowpoint on July 25, 2007 at 8:35 PM
That’s a flat out lie. I have put in written form and youtubes of him saying he thought that it was a woman’s right to chose and the gov’t should stay out of it many times, including in this thread.
You are either willfully lying or are unable to read. In either case, I’m done debating with someone who just lies on the facts. It’s pointless.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 8:42 PM
RomneyCare at Work – Monday, July 02, 2007 @ 11:16:56 AM
Yesterday, the NY Times wrote about the Massachusetts health care program, as the individual madate takes effect. It is hard to imagine anything representing a greater affront to conservative principles than using government to coerce private citizens into purchasing healthcare. It is shocking that Mitt Romney could institute such a mandate and just months later run for president claiming to be a “conservative” in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, and be taken seriously. It is especially surprising given that one of the main gripes conservatives have had with President Bush has been the Medicare prescription drug plan–RomneyCare is far worse.
Even if you are more sympathetic to Romney than I am, I challenge you to read this and ask yourself whether you believe it is consistent with limited government principles:
In 2008, the penalty for those not insured will be a loss of state tax exemption, worth about $219; later the penalty will be up to half of a monthly insurance premium for each month a person is uninsured. Also, while any insurance is acceptable at first, by January 2009, everyone must have drug coverage.
There is one bright spot in the plan–residents who don’t like it can move:
Linda Impemba, 58, a marketing company employee in Wakefield, said she would remain uninsured, pay penalties, and, as soon as her ailing mother dies, will leave Massachusetts. “There’s no way in heaven I can possibly survive in this state,” Ms. Impemba said. “Now not only is my cost going to go up, everything’s going to be raised so I can pay for the other people” to be insured.
We won’t be so fortunate if such a plan gets created at the federal level. And as we have seen under President Bush, it is a lot easier for a big government Republican to to pursue expansionist domestic policies than it is for a Democrat. Practically speaking, a President Romney could put us on the pathway to socialized medicine faster than President Hillary. While Romney may be trying to distance himself from the plan as he tries to sell himself to conservatives, given his record of doing whatever is most politically expedient, there’s no reason for conservatives to believe that he would rule out a similar nationwide plan as president. And yes, this is why a record of brazen flip-flopping matters.
Posted By: Philip Klein
I don’t see this as promoting a conservative position. Mitt is a highley polished supersalesman is in stark contrast to Fred Thompsons pickup truck driving folksy christian lawyer. Mitt just tells people what they want to hear and does whatever. He takes the path of least resistance. He does not seem to have any core principles worth standing for. I for one would not buy a used car from Mitt. By the way what kind of name is Mitt. Is that short for Mitchel?
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Oh no!! Romney supported gays having equal rights and supported civil unions over gay marriage.
Horror.
As to the BSA, a private organization that uses public places such as high schools free of charge for their meetings, yea, I agree with Romney. There is no, as in zero, proof that gays seek to prey on young boy any more than heterosexual perverts. If the BSA wants to use public accomodations and get the tax breaks it does, then silly me, I think they should act like any other equal organization.
I guess I’m like Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney. I think gays deserve equal rights. Not you, I guess.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Sometimes when a door is open you should walk through it before it slams in your face.
SouthernGent on July 25, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Well that’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about. You quote the NYT. I’ll quote the Heritage Foundation.
What’s that…costs the taxpayers less? I’m intrigued. Tell me more.
I
Opps…I guess the Heritage Foundation is calling you out.
So let me see if I got this, Romney found that it would be cheaper to make unisured people sign up for healthcare that was already available through medicare dollars not being used and thus save tax payers money by not having the unisured use emergency rooms as primary medical care? And the Heritage Foundation helped design this…and it SAVES TAXPAYERS MONEY??
Gosh, this is a tough one. Who to believe. You and the NYT or the Heritage Foundation, one of the most conservative organizations in the country?
You guys really should understand what you’re talking about before quoting the NYT.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:21 PM
It’s obvious this isn’t about their guy. It’s about them personally. They act like criticizing fred? is tantamount to criticizing them.
They seem incapable of dealing with freds? lies and fakeries without dragging some other candidate into the discussion. The thing that is comical is that you haven’t made up your mind yet, so attacking Romney is pointless!!
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I guess I’m like Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney. I think gays deserve equal rights. Not you, I guess.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:03 PM
My opinion doesn’t matter. I do not decide the outcome of national elections. Personally I am hetrosexual and I stick with my own kind for cultural and economic reasons. Two words Mark foley!
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Which is funny because I distinctly remember Mitt fighting the court decision with all the power he had. Unfortunetely he can’t veto court rulings, so he made sure Massachusetts licenses were not to be recognized in other states, and that one couldn’t just fly to MA for the document and fly back. Mitt spent his entire administration holding back liberalism in a state where the other two branches of government are dominated by liberals. It’s a testament to his conservative values that he didn’t just go with the flow and rubber-stamp everything like a Democrat would.
Fred? Uh… he sat on his rear end. Fred has never had to defend conservatism. All Fred has ever had to do is show up in his rented truck as his Law & Order fueled posse eats up his every word. Romney actually was a governor. Giuliani was actually an assistant to the DA and an AG. All Fred ever did was play a DA on TV. That is the extent to his executive experience: A few scenes every now and then of a job that isn’t nearly as glamorous in the real world.
Fred is a nobody in the world of politics. He was just another arm-twisting lobbyists in a sea of amoral, amorphus cause peddlers. He was a Senator who could have been replaced by a computer program designed to vote Republican. He’s said a lot, but he’s never led anything in his life.
Thompson is the epitome of the lazy do-nothing candidate. He can’t even muster up the courage to announce.
BKennedy on July 25, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Your kind. Hee. Two words for you, a shit load of Catholic priests all over America who rapped kids and then had it covered up by their heirarchy including Cardinal Law who sits in the Vatican, promoted for his actions. Was that more than two words?
You’re right, though. You don’t decide national elections. The far right is not America.
I stick with Ronald Reagan and his gay son and Dick Cheney and his gay daughter. Or are they not your kind?
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:32 PM
That is a lie and you damn well know it! freds? pro-choice comments have been linked several times.
You sir, have no credibility because you refuse to debate him honestly.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Yeah, I was gonna suggest that and I support you 100%.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I have no problem admitting that all the candidates have flaws. They are, afterall, human and worse, politicians. But this blind love of Fred and insisting that he is something he is not is weird and it doesn’t help him.
He will either get called on it now or in the general election when everything is at stake.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:40 PM
And the Heritage Foundation helped design this…and it SAVES TAXPAYERS MONEY?? You guys really should understand what you’re talking about before quoting the NYT.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:21 PM………………..In 2008, the penalty for those not insured will be a loss of state tax exemption, worth about $219; later the penalty will be up to half of a monthly insurance premium for each month a person is uninsured. Also, while any insurance is acceptable at first, by January 2009, everyone must have drug coverage.
There’s still no such thing as a free lunch. I don’t care for more government intrusion in my life. In Florida we don’t pay city or state income tax and out Governor just pushed through a state wide property tax decrease.
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Why don’t you read the actual plan. Here’s a truth whether you like it or not. Every second of every day, you are paying for people who don’t have health insurance. It is the single biggest drain on the health insurance industry because by law, any citizen, and in some states non-citizens, particularly in border states like Florida, people can walk into the emergency room and get treated. This causes health insurance, that the rest of us pay for either through individual plans or corporate plans, to cost more. That’s not a supposition, that’s just a fact.
Their is a bunch of our tax dollars already appropriated for medicaire and medicaid that pays the hospitals for the uninsured folks bills today. Hospitals routinely charge medicaire/medicaid more because they pay, no questions they just pay. Under Romney’s plan, he is forcing people who aren’t insured to take the gov’t dollars available to them and put them to an HMO or health insurance which will pay the hospitals less. If you choose to do nothing or if you make enough money and won’t take health insurance (which the taxpayers also end up paying for through defaults, look at the numbers) then you forfeit a $280 something tax credit..not a payment a credit.
Stop talking about this as a big government plan. You are worng. You live in a big government plan already. Those of us who are tax payers in MA and have bothered to run the numbers know this will save us money.
That’s a fact.
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:56 PM
You’re right, though. You don’t decide national elections. The far right is not America.
I stick with Ronald Reagan and his gay son and Dick Cheney and his gay daughter. Or are they not your kind?
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Gee do you have a crystal ball? Far Right? HUH? Dude I’m just a bourbon drinking bar room brawling hard hat of 25 years in recovery for the last ten years. Yeah my kind. I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 after his perfect performance as Governor in California. Reducing the welfare rolls while increasing benefits and putting people back to work also putting the state back in the black ink. OH did I mention I own a small business. It’s called being an entrepreneur. So if thats far right then guilty as charged Oh Soothsayer Sir.
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Jack,
Sounds like another one that doesn’t deserve your time.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Ever notice how these fred? threads always turn into the fred?heads attacking someone else because they can’t defend fred??
It’s true.
csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 10:16 PM
No. The fear is that Fred may win.
Helloyawl on July 25, 2007 at 10:18 PM
JackStraw on July 25, 2007 at 9:56 PM
WOW what a sales job. Just like Mitt.
All well and good. So does that negate Bush’s tort reform to restrict frivilous law suits. I see where a women is suing Con Edison for the explosion in NYC the other day for post truamatic stress dissorder. I mean no injuries just for the stress. I think that is unacceptable. Do you know what a surgeon pays for malpractice insurance. Some pay 200K pr yr or more. Plus all the millions in medicaid and medicare fraud by everyone involved including some Doctors. That is the driving force to unaffordable health care and insurance. Fred Thompson lobbied for a firm involved in a class action suit regarding asbestos injuries. He pursued to limit the amount each claimant was entitled. That is the solution I see Mitt’s way as just perpetuating more government bureaucracy.
sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »