George Will’s Stunning, Devastating, Campaign-Wrecking, Bye-Bye-Fred Column

posted at 5:28 am on September 13, 2007 by see-dubya

Overhyped, wordy, yet ultimately pointless…whether I’m describing Fred’s candidacy, or George Will’s latest (of several, actually) Fred-bashing column is left as an exercise for the reader.

Looks like Will gets a solid base hit on one subject: contrasting Fred’s record on campaign finance reform with what he told Laura Ingraham (audio, skip to 5:43) about his record on campaign finance reform. To wit:

Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham “I voted for all of it,” meaning McCain-Feingold, but said “I don’t support that” provision of it.

Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress’ especially “compelling interest” in squelching issue ads that “influence” elections?

Beyond that, though, Will seems to be accusing Fred of A: not raising enough money, and B: not being religious enough to raise conservative Christians’ money:

Is there, however, a huge cash value in the role for which he is auditioning — darling of religious conservatives? Perhaps. But their aspiring darling recently said in South Carolina, “I attend church when I’m in Tennessee. I’m in McLean right now. I don’t attend regularly when I’m up there.”

“Right now”? He has been living “up there” in that upscale inside-the-Beltway Washington suburb, honing his “Aw, shucks, I’m just an ol’ Washington outsider” act, for years. Long enough to have noticed that McLean is planted thick with churches. Going to church is, of course, optional — unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.

Hot Air commenters, whether churchgoing or not, and whether Fred supporters or not, weren’t quite as scandalized by this admission as Will thinks they ought to have been. I have to say these politicized sneers about the state of Fred’s soul are every bit as relevant and enlightening as the attempts to dig something that isn’t there out of the records of his divorce. Or, perhaps more apposite, the sneering Mormon-bashing we’ve seen directed at Romney. And they make the sneerers look just as good.

Meanwhile, from the left, Fred is getting hit with cries of Too Much Jesus!

The Fred-bashers–all over the spectrum–are sounding more and more like militant atheists who have this really off-putting zeal where you would expect to find only apathy or mild contempt. They all want to be the one who really sticks it to Fred and proves you’re wrong and deluded if you support him. Fine; if you really believe there’s nothing there, then act like it. If Thompson is truly the empty suit and ideological enigma you claim, he’ll dry up soon enough. (I mean, I don’t waste a whole lot of time fisking Brownback’s or Gilmore’s policy positions, and I don’t throw a rod every time someone resigns from the Ron Paul campaign. Will’s written three columns bashing Fred.)

The message being sent by all these scattershot attacks is that Fred is a serious threat that must be stopped–which is a very different message from most of the attack rhetoric itself. He could never win! We must stop him from winning! Allahpundit’s offhand “exactly what is it he’s done?” and “yeah, enough with the cornpone” remarks are actually far more devastating than the curiously desperate and counterproductive ack-ack Will and the Daily Mail are throwing up.

Utterly Gratuitous Exit Question: Piffle, or not piffle?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Meh. I still don’t get the hostility to Fred. I’m with you C-Dub, this was way overhyped. I don’t like the Campaign Finance stuff, but let’s get it overturned in the SC as unconstitutional. I’m still waiting to hear Fred’s ideas expressed through policy particulars. That’s when I’ll make my descision. And Will is an idiot if he thinks having more money guarantees a win. Just ask Teve Torb (I too can play the SNL reference game).

The Apologist on September 13, 2007 at 6:15 AM

The more they attack the better the poll numbers for Fred. Quite the correlation that’s developing. Bring ‘em on!

Moses99 on September 13, 2007 at 6:21 AM

ha, i went to bed thinking there was some big revalation that would damn his soul to eternal hell or something by all the hype about this article.

its still to early, im waiting for newt to throw his hat in the ring,,, fire will shoot from moonbat eyes everywhere when/if he does lol

trailortrash on September 13, 2007 at 6:30 AM

I think the issue with the church thing is that he gave the impression that he goes often “when he’s in Tennessee,” although he’s really not in Tennessee that often. I really don’t care, but on that point, his statement was kind of misleading.

Big S on September 13, 2007 at 6:38 AM

Excellent work, See Dubya.

1. I like Fred, but I don’t love Fred, and his support of McCain-Feingold is the reason for the difference. Anyone who thinks we need to “get money out of politics” has deviated from the basic conservative message in a non-trival way.

2. Will’s attacks on Thompson are meant to warn the readers of the nation’s most popular syndicated columnist that Thompson has important baggage.

3. I think Will is comfortable with either Romney or Giuliani — both Northeasterners — for ’08 because he’s tired of hearing Bush’s inarticulate drawl as the voice of the GOP. Thompson’s drawl is more articulate, but it’s still a drawl.

4. The best hope for the GOP in ’08? The election of President Hillary Rodham Clinton. Talk about energizing the base ….

Ali-Bubba on September 13, 2007 at 6:58 AM

Will is a defeatist and his opinions blow in the wind. You don’t win by losing you frigging idiot.

tomas on September 13, 2007 at 7:12 AM

The Fred-bashers–all over the spectrum–are sounding more and more like militant atheists who have this really off-putting zeal where you would expect to find only apathy or mild contempt.

Obligatory csdeven/BKennedy non-denial “denial” proving your point in 5, 4, 3….

steveegg on September 13, 2007 at 7:18 AM

The more these saps get ruffled over Fred, the more I respect him. His wife would make a smokin’ first lady.

Hening on September 13, 2007 at 7:35 AM

Does anybody else think of Heinrich Himmler when you picture George Will? Ever since I was a kid, I wondered if there was any family relation.

jihadwatcher on September 13, 2007 at 7:46 AM

It’s not a matter of “bashing”. The problem is, his candidacy only splits the party further, and his nomination would almost ensure a Clinton White House. He looks like a fine guy and I’d be happy to send him to the White House under different circumstances, but 2008 is all about beating Hillary, and I can’t understand why it’s so hard for people to see that Thompson isn’t the guy that can do that.

Halley on September 13, 2007 at 7:51 AM

Will loved the look of his own written ramblings.He has sunk to the contrarian level of the Ingram definition. Let him rant, I don’t care.

bbz123 on September 13, 2007 at 7:55 AM

…I can’t understand why it’s so hard for people to see that Thompson isn’t the guy that can do that.

Halley on September 13, 2007 at 7:51 AM

Because they are unwilling to look at the electoral chances on a state by state basis. Kind of like the advice about buying a car “Be willing to walk away from the salesman and the car if they price is wrong”

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 7:58 AM

Will loved the look of his own written ramblings.He has sunk to the contrarian level of the Ingram definition. Let him rant, I don’t care.

bbz123 on September 13, 2007 at 7:55 AM

Pulitzer prixe winner and probably voted for Republicans 95% of the time… yes time to toss him out of the party, we don’t his stinking vote….

Bradky on September 13, 2007 at 8:01 AM

Has he even ever thrown a baseball?

frankj on September 13, 2007 at 8:02 AM

The paper Will’s column is written on is to the election as toilet paper is to Fred’s a$$.

sonnyspats1 on September 13, 2007 at 8:22 AM

I get your sentiment,Bradky, but winning a Pulitzer is about as impressive to me a winning a Nobel Peace prize, its actually a badge of dishonor IMHO.

bbz123 on September 13, 2007 at 8:23 AM

frankj on September 13, 2007 at 8:02 AM

Don’t know, but he’s got soothing nasal tones in spades. Idgits love those.

MT on September 13, 2007 at 8:23 AM

I respect the opinion of George Will. It’s obvious he has another choice for Republican nominee; probably Giuliani.

I don’t care one whit about Fred’s religious convictions (or lack of them.) What I care about is having a chance to win in ’08, and I believe Fred Thompson is the best chance we have. Not Giuliani or Romney, with their Gun Control baggage. I just…can’t…pull the trigger…for either one of those candidates (unless, of course, they be VP to Fred.)

(After all, I’m the NRA.)

Serr8d on September 13, 2007 at 8:24 AM

George Will is a beltway Republican, trying to keep his in with the cocktail set. He has been defeatist on the War for years now. I quit reading him.

Stormy70 on September 13, 2007 at 8:26 AM

The thing to watch here is whether Fred can be tough in the face of these attacks.

If he can and can articulate his positions clearly with passion, he will be a more solid candidate.

If he cannot we don’t want him in the office.

BobH on September 13, 2007 at 8:39 AM

I could care less if he goes to church or not. I would rather he not go than go and be a hypocrite about it as others do. For the Clintons to go to church is blasphemy. David Geppin said, “all politicians lie, but Hillary does it with such ease, its frightening.” He is a huge democratic donor. George Will can’t decide which side of the ass to kiss….the right or the left.

volsense on September 13, 2007 at 8:46 AM

I get where you are coming at with most of that but the angst towards Fred goes deeper than that. Well, maybe not deeper but definitely into secondary issues.

1) A lot of the support Fred has received, as he has admitted, is because of his acting roles. We all know how stupid and shallow the American voter can be (look at the support Hillary gets), and when we see that blind groupie worship within our own party it is a cause for serious concern. Thinking conservatives are not fooled by Fred’s rhetoric and are being tentative before throwing their support behind him. Unfortunately, Fred is not speaking to us. He is speaking to the idiots who are in love with the BS image he has created for himself.

2) Simple disgust. I am personally offended that a supposed conservative would treat me as if I am so stupid that I would throw my support for him because he uses references to the movies he has been in as part of his appeal as a candidate. Jeeze, give me a break, “The Hunt for Red November”??? It’s insulting.

The conclusion is that Fred is the most dangerous candidate to the conservative cause in America because if he receives the nomination, he will be destroyed by Hillary. Or if he miraculously does win the general, he’ll bring his nepotism and lobbying ways to the white house. His campaign staff is loaded with lobbyists and by all accounts, a power hungry wife.

And that my friend, is not irrational concern. Because Fred has refused to debate and has set his campaign up so that he does not have to disclose his finances until January 08, it is up to we clear thinking conservatives to expose this fraud at every turn. He is hiding something and turning our back to that because we know he is an empty suit is irresponsible. We have to reach these blind groupies who lap up his lies and obfuscations so we can prevent the election of the worst candidate in conservative history.

And we have made progress. There are several folks who have eased off their slavish devotion to Fred in part because many of us keep posting the facts about him in every single Fred thread and those facts have been born out by Fred’s behavior over the coming months.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 8:46 AM

Cs, you should have taken that $10 grand settlement Fred offered you. Then you could have put this whole thing behind you. It was your fault your dog was not on a leash.

jihadwatcher on September 13, 2007 at 8:52 AM

Last Sunday just about everyone on the talking head shows were laughing off a Fred! candidacy, with one exception (who I was very surprised at). Sam Donaldson. He called everyone on the left and the RINOs bluff saying he remembered all the same things being said about Ronnie and told them to wake up. Of course that was laughed off too.
I think Mr. Donaldson hit it on the head. It isn’t that Fred is Ronnie that scares them, it is that he could be.

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 8:56 AM

I’ll be making up my own mind, thank you very much. Starting next week when I will actually see/meet Fred in person. After that, there’s still another whole year to get all of our questions asked and answered.

Exit answer: Not exactly piffle. More like just a pebble.

RushBaby on September 13, 2007 at 8:56 AM

The conclusion is that Fred is the most dangerous candidate to the conservative cause in America because if he receives the nomination, he will be destroyed by Hillary.

This is my major concern. Thompson has yet to show a killer instinct, which will be necessary to beat Clinton and her campaign tactics.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 8:59 AM

And we have made progress. There are several folks who have eased off their slavish devotion to Fred in part because many of us keep posting the facts about him in every single Fred thread and those facts have been born out by Fred’s behavior over the coming months.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 8:46 AM

I highly doubt any easing of support had ANYTHING to do with your desperate, maniacal obsession with Fred. Much more likely, they tired of his delay in getting into this thing (the stupidly early primary season notwithstanding).

It’s too bad you can’t keep to your own convictions. It’s too bad you move your own goalposts (thus eroding whatever credibility you thought you had). It’s too bad, because your primary reason for subjecting us to your rabble was because he wouldn’t get in. Now he’s in, we were all so hopeful for your blessed silence. Guess you can’t stand not having angry attention shone your way?

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Obligatory csdeven/BKennedy non-denial “denial” proving your point in 5, 4, 3….
steveegg on September 13, 2007 at 7:18 AM

The more these saps get ruffled over Fred, the more I respect him. His wife would make a smokin’ first lady.
Hening on September 13, 2007 at 7:35 AM

The paper Will’s column is written on is to the election as toilet paper is to Fred’s a$$.
sonnyspats1 on September 13, 2007 at 8:22 AM

More support for Fred based on zero substance and 100% BS image manufactured by Fred. We even have two single issue 2nd amendment voters who don’t care on bit about Fred’s attacks on free speech etc. These types will stay home unless Fred is the nominee. THAT is serious cause for concern See-Dubya.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 9:01 AM

TheFred supporters have eased their devotion because: Fred is thumping Mitt, and quickly moving to be number one choice. No sense in them beating their chest, this isn’t a game of “I gotcha” like the Mitt-wits want it to be. The Fred supporters just rise above the foolish and hateful rhetoric of the Mitt-wits.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 9:04 AM

This is my major concern. Thompson has yet to show a killer instinct, which will be necessary to beat Clinton and her campaign tactics.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Not to argue with you here, but I must be missing the Republican candidate in this race who is currently showing killer instincts, because I surely haven’t seen one.

Esthier on September 13, 2007 at 9:09 AM

I’ll give this to the antiFred!s….everything rides on his first debate. Do well and I can’t see him not being the nominee. Do poorly and he won’t get a second chance to gain ground. His holding out has put a lot of people on the ‘put-up-or-shut-up’ wagon.

Like right2bright said……I’m willing to give all of them a fair hearing, even the Shamnesty champions. Poisoning the well of any of the candidates isn’t doing us Republicans any favors.

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Poisoning the well of any of the candidates isn’t doing us Republicans any favors.

Good points.

Now someone go tell James Dobson.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 9:00 AM

You’re just another groupie. You ignore the substance and attack me.
None of us who are not fooled by Fred ever said he wouldn’t get in. The complaint was his game playing with the announcement.

And yes our comments did have an effect because we were proven right about his continued game playing, his stumble out of the blocks, and other prognostications about Fred. We provided rational alternatives to Fred’s behavior and were proven correct time and time again. The fact is that many of your former groupie friends made predictions that never came true and they had no choice but to finally agree with us. People like you, who lie to themselves and have not allowed us to enlighten you, are attempting to re-write history and ignore the facts about Fred. That makes perfect sense to you and frankly, considering your ignorance on the true nature of Fred, it makes perfect sense to we clear thinking conservatives also.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 9:12 AM

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Wow csd….that is a pretty tall soapbox you have yourself up on.

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 9:15 AM

and have not allowed us to enlighten you…

Yes, comrades. Please report to Re-education Camp immediately.

wccawa on September 13, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Seems to me that Will is a huge Cubs fan. Does that mean he’ll end up supporting Ron Paul?

PatrickS on September 13, 2007 at 9:24 AM

people like you, who lie to themselves and have not allowed us to enlighten you,

Damn.

That is some sweet sweet ego you got going there. Almost, dare I say, Kerry-esque?

krakatoa on September 13, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Fred supported m/f and once filled out a questionaire supporting a woman’s right to choose.

Ronnie signed the ‘Therapeutic Abortion Act’ into law in California and championed the nanny-state MediCal system.

According to the antiFred!lobbyists then, Ronnie should have been seen and condemned as a pro-abortionist/welfare state ‘faker’ just as Fred! should be condemned as a pro-abortionist/anti first amendment poser.

Ronnie revised his positions over time. There isn’t a sane person in the world who would consider him as having been a pro-choice President.

You antiFred!lobbyists need some Brasso to polish up that armor of yours because it’s getting pretty dull.

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 9:34 AM

I don’t want to be “enlightened” by CS Deven. I’m not sure where I really stand on Fred but I don’t need the likes of you to “enlighten” me. What an arogant arse you are!

Catie96706 on September 13, 2007 at 9:37 AM

You’re just another groupie. You ignore the substance and attack me.

I am just another groupie, based on what exactly?

As to your substance…what substance? You gave up on substance months ago, credibility before that.

None of us who are not fooled by Fred ever said he wouldn’t get in. The complaint was his game playing with the announcement.

No, you opined back then that your attacks were going to be made until he got in. He’s in, and you’re still going at it. You went back on your word, thus your word is worth nothing.

And yes our comments did have an effect because we were proven right about his continued game playing, his stumble out of the blocks, and other prognostications about Fred. We provided rational alternatives to Fred’s behavior and were proven correct time and time again.

Could I please see a show of hands from the Fred groupies (because, anyone who’s not anti-Fred like you is by definition a groupie) who soured on Fred due to your poisoning of the HA well? I am quite certain that for every one that crops up, there will be a dozen that won’t. Such influence you have!

The fact is that many of your former groupie friends made predictions that never came true and they had no choice but to finally agree with us. People like you, who lie to themselves and have not allowed us to enlighten you, are attempting to re-write history and ignore the facts about Fred.

And you accuse me of attacking you? Ha-ha!
I know this might come as a shock to you, but I am actually capable to form an opinion by gathering facts and opinions on my own and judging for myself what I like and don’t like about Fred, whether I will choose to support him or not. Sit down a second, because I’m going to tell you something: I don’t need you to do that. You greatly overestimate your importance.

That makes perfect sense to you and frankly, considering your ignorance on the true nature of Fred, it makes perfect sense to we clear thinking conservatives also.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 9:12 AM

I’m quite certain you have no idea what makes perfect sense to me. Your assumptions and therefore conclusions would be hystericial if they weren’t so sad.

I come back around to my plea for you to honor your word and, now that Fred’s officially in the race, to kindly shut it.

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Dance you 8itches dance!

Bwahahahaha.

Every single thread about Fred turns into the groupies attacking little old me for trying to tell the truth about my superior deductive skills and the vacuous nature of their savior.

Just stick to defending Fred, it makes more sense than attacking the messenger.

;-)

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 9:37 AM

I respect the opinion of George Will. It’s obvious he has another choice for Republican nominee; probably Giuliani.
Serr8d on September 13, 2007 at 8:24 AM

It’s not possible to “respect” whining.

It is easy and safe to be against anything. It only takes effort to be FOR something – or someone. If George Will believes that only good old-fashioned northeastern Rockefeller Republicanism beat Hillary Clinton, then let he should have the balls to SAY that and explain WHY he believes that.

To just coyly smear this or that candidate, without formulating any sort of positive opinion about your secret favorite, puts George Will in the same category as someone like CS. OK plus 80 or so IQ points, but I’m afraid that still doesn’t put him anywhere near the “respectable” category.

logis on September 13, 2007 at 9:40 AM

I dunno. I don’t see this George Will op-ed as being “overhyped”.

His support of McCain-Feingold is very troubling and is the reason I have been skeptical of his candidacy. This does not make me any more inclined to support him:

In 1997, Thompson chaired a Senate committee investigating 1996 election spending. In its final report, issued in 1998, Thompson’s committee recommended a statutory “restriction on issue advocacy” during “a set period prior to an election” when the speech includes “any use of a candidate’s name or image.” And in 1999, Thompson co-sponsored legislation containing what became, in 2002, the McCain-Feingold blackout periods imposed on any television or radio ad that “refers to” a candidate for federal office — a portion of which the Supreme Court in June declared unconstitutional.

As for the religious references, Will himself says:

Going to church is, of course, optional — unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.

I think Will’s point is simply that Fred is not credible, but I’d have to see Fred’s comment in context. Was he asked about his church attendance or did he volunteer this information?

It is pretty lame to say that he only goes to church in Tennessee since by saying that he himself is implying that church attendance matters, while I for one could not care less.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Uh, yeah, that column was a waste of my time. Sounds like Will already has a candidate and decided to write a hit piece on Fred because he’s mad that he’s sapping support from his guy. All the little “quotation marks” he threw in made it come off very snarky and annoying. His attempt was, shall we say, not adequate.

CP on September 13, 2007 at 9:49 AM

All the little “quotation marks” he threw in made it come off very snarky and annoying. His attempt was, shall we say, not adequate.

They were all quotes from Thompson.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 9:50 AM

No, you opined back then that your attacks were going to be made until he got in.

Wrong again groupie. I said he would get no respect from me as an equal candidate until he grew some stones and got in.

Could I please see a show of hands from the Fred groupies (because, anyone who’s not anti-Fred like you is by definition a groupie) who soured on Fred due to your poisoning of the HA well?

The well wasn’t poisoned by the facts, it was cleansed. And you obviously have not been paying attention because several former groupies announced that they had enough of him and have backed way off. They still want to support him, but are cautiously waiting for him to debate someone. ANYONE.

I am quite certain that for every one that crops up, there will be a dozen that won’t. Such influence you have!

So you agree that there are many groupies who refuse to be enlightened. Good, I am making progress with you now.

And you accuse me of attacking you?

You get what you give groupie.

I highly doubt any easing of support had ANYTHING to do with your desperate, maniacal obsession with Fred.
Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Are you gonna cry some more because someone responded in kind to you? hahaha

I come back around to my plea for you to honor your word and, now that Fred’s officially in the race, to kindly shut it.
Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Fred gets the exact same level of credibility that the other candidates get. He is a real candidate, but now he has to perform to conservative standards. So far, he talks the talk in general statements. But he has yet to be challenged in an interview where he isn’t given a tongue bath. The closest he got to that was the last Hannity interview, and as you can see from my 8:22 AM post on the “Fred says he’s not a regular churchgoer” thread, Fred was a miserable failure in delineating his positions clearly in an ever so slightly tougher interview. Now, you want me to give Fred the same pass that you do. Sorry, no candidate gets a pass on their weaknesses as a candidate. If any other candidate did that, he’d get the same treatment from me.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 10:08 AM

CP on September 13, 2007 at 9:49 AM

Yeah, you took my thoughts entirely – Will has his own axe to grind here. Same reason Hugh Hewitt rushed to put this on Townhall today – Hugh’s in the bag for Romney (much to my dismay).

Fred is going to be the choice folks, because he’s been the only of the top runners who has a history of being a consistent consensus conservative (McCain/Feingold as the exception, not the rule).

JDinSC on September 13, 2007 at 10:09 AM

csdeven etal…

“We all know how stupid and shallow the American voter can be…blind groupie worship…Thinking conservatives are not fooled by…not speaking to us…speaking to the idiots.”

Hmmm, sounds like a democrat to me…of course!? The old me smart, you stupid trick, agent 99.

It is going to take the blind groupies, the fooled, the idiots and those smarter than “us” to defeat the democrats. If you “think” not, one name should re-convince you, Hillary…

marketing for the not so smart,

GoingThere on September 13, 2007 at 10:15 AM

You’re either for Fred or you’re scared to death of Fred. That’s enough for me right there. I can go on with my life and my lakehouse and boat and kids. I’ll see you November 4th 2008 to make sure Fred is on the ticket.

Griz on September 13, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Utterly Gratuitous Exit Question: Piffle, or not piffle?

It doesn’t even deserve a full piffle, just a pif…

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 9:34 AM

You know I love ya, but I think you have forgotten WHY we have skewered Fred on the abortion issue. It was a response to the groupies refusal to accept that Fred was essentially no better than the other rep candidates on the abortion issue. They were adamantly against Rudy and Mitt because of abortion and said because of that, Fred was the better choice. Now that it has been shown that Fred is no better, we want other reasons why he is the better choice.

You, as a reasonable conservative, are willing to see that there really is no distinction in the area of abortion. We are not responding to your position, but rather are responding to the groupies who still think Fred holds the moral high ground on abortion.

Although you have understood this all along, there are some former groupies who have changed their minds on Fred’s supposed stake to the high ground on this. THIS is a perfect example of how those of us who point out Fred’s true history HAVE in fact made a difference and converted groupies to rational conservatives. That fact is why I utterly reject the claims that I am egotistical. I know when I’m right and I’m not gonna let hair renting groupies frame my position based on their ignorance.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 10:21 AM

I’d like to challenge the Fred supporters who think this is a “hit piece” to explain why his support of McCain-Feingold, which included not his advocacy of restrictions on speech as far back as 1997 but his filing a brief with the Supreme Court, should not be a concern in the 2008 election.

Thanks in advance.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Sorry – last sentence should have said: …which included not only^^^

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 10:27 AM

The biggest issue for me, honestly, is whether Fred is willing to continue the vigorous prosecution of the war on zombies.

DaveS on September 13, 2007 at 10:28 AM

GoingThere on September 13, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Facts are facts. If you can’t handle the truth about Fred, you ought to just keep watching his acting roles and leave the primary process to us.

Again, notice how, instead of dealing with Fred, you choose to focus on other stuff. Interesting.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 10:29 AM

csdeven-

I’ve appreciated your Fred comments. You’ve definitely helped me identify and focus the source of my uneasiness about him.

As the famous pundit, Ricky Ricardo, once said, “Loocy, you got alota splainin to doo.”

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:29 AM

You know I love ya,

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Bull$hit, you dont love anyone here, hell you dont even respect anyone here and that includes our wonderful host. If you did, you would never have addressed anyone here in the vulgar disrespectful insulting manner you have. At the bare minimum you would have shown Michelle the respect of not engaging in the politics of personal destruction on her blog.

But you did, you did all of those things in a disgusting unending manner that became so predictable that one particular thread had the first 50 posts in it dedicated specifically to your rude and vulgar anti-social behavior.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Will gushed on and ON about Rudy before introducing him at CPAC…everyone was like ok you love him shut up already…

DCJeff on September 13, 2007 at 10:31 AM

You’re either for Fred or you’re scared to death of Fred.
Griz on September 13, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Nice attempt at the straw man, but I’ve seen it before and am not fooled. No one I know is afraid of Fred because he is a “real conservative”. What you mistake for fear, is simply disgust at a Washington insider lobbyist trying to pass himself off as a conservative. The only fear is that he will fool enough idiots that he’ll get the nomination and then lose to Hillary or he’ll miraculously win the general and turn the white house into the most powerful lobbying firm ever.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 10:34 AM

You’re either for Fred or you’re scared to death of Fred.
Griz on September 13, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Actually, there’s a third option. I’m waiting to see how Thompson handles himself against the other candidates in a debate and how he articulates his policy positions.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 10:38 AM

csdeven, I think griz was just pointing out that there is a definate anti-Fred talking-point machine–for which you are exhibit A–out there, and anytime someone directs that much of their resources toward one candidate then they are probably “scared” of him.

DaveS on September 13, 2007 at 10:38 AM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 10:29 AM

You just never learn do you?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 10:26 AM

I have concerns about all the candidates. It’s rare that anyone is gonna be 100% in favor of every instance in a candidate’s record. And, I’m not wild that Fred supported McCain/Feingold but it’s not a make or break issue with me.

CP on September 13, 2007 at 10:42 AM

csdeven, I think griz was just pointing out that there is a definate anti-Fred talking-point machine–for which you are exhibit A–out there, and anytime someone directs that much of their resources toward one candidate then they are probably “scared” of him.

DaveS on September 13, 2007 at 10:38 AM

csdeven is just mad because Fred ran over his dog. A leash would have prevented that, but cs only expects others to be responsible for their actions.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 10:43 AM

DaveS on September 13, 2007 at 10:38 AM

He didn’t say probably. He allowed for two positions only. And, ignorantly, he choses his candidate on that criteria and not what the candidates actual position is.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 10:43 AM

You just never learn do you?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 10:41 AM

And you just cant be a civilized human being, which makes you the sadder of the two of us.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 10:44 AM

I’d like to challenge the Fred supporters who think this is a “hit piece” to explain why his support of McCain-Feingold
Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 10:26 AM

First off, McCain-Feingold wasn’t the subject of the piece. Fred Thompson was. It was a component of the article but not the purpose. The purpose was to turn the voters away from FDT.

In an interview with Hannity, I think, Fred said that, yes, he voted for McCain-Feingold, but that the effect of it didn’t turn out the way he hoped.

That’s enough of a quote to tell you that the way McCain-Feingold has been interpreted and used isn’t the way it was envisioned. Good enough for me. Do better next time.

If McCain-Feingold was such an error and such a raging problem that all of the members of Congress and all the states are screaming about, why hasn’t there been any legislation to counteract it? And where’s all the attacking on McCain, the namesake of the bill itself?

To reiterate, the hit piece was on Fred. And it was pretty snarky, IMO.

Tennman on September 13, 2007 at 11:00 AM

why hasn’t there been any legislation to counteract it?
Tennman on September 13, 2007 at 11:00 AM

The SCOTUS is striking parts of it down. Besides, this congress will never get anything accomplished, much less legislation that allows for free speech.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Here is the roll-call on m/f….
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00054

Do I believe that Fred! should not have voted for the bill.
Sure I do. Is it a ‘deal-breaker’ for me? No. Just like Ronnie signing the ‘Thereaputic Abortion Act’ was not a deal breaker for me. Both were mistakes.

The ‘insider’ BS is just that, BS. Every single candidate is an ‘insider’ who has worked their way through our political system as it stands. Mayor, governor, senator, congressman, all the same system. Sunshine townhall meetings and cigar-smoke filled back rooms. Rudy!Mitt!McCain!Fred!….all have tripped over the rug on their way to where they are. What I want to know is where they plan on going now.

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 11:03 AM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Thanks for the concern, but don’t you think the point is that you should have made at least one remark on the hit piece on Fred?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Besides, this congress will never get anything accomplished, much less legislation that allows for free speech.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:03 AM

And on that, we can agree 100 percent, with a fervent prayer that they never get anything accomplished according to the agendas of Pelosi and Reed.

Tennman on September 13, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Thanks for the concern, but don’t you think the point is that you should have made at least one remark on the hit piece on Fred?

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:05 AM

No, actually I am more concerned with you finding your way back to being a decent civilized human being. I know its in you and I keep hoping that I can find a way to bring it back to the surface.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Fred Thompson has been in the race officially for less than a week. His campaign is locked and loaded as evidenced by his hitting the ground running and his fast paced sweep on the campaign trail. Fred Thompson has been in four or five states already this week and will be in Florida Sept.13th and Sept.14th. (today and tommorrow). The locations can be found at I’m with fred.com. I will be going to hear what FRED THOMPSON has to say today. I think it is prudent to listen to the man in person to get a better perception of his credibility, and take a snap shot if you will, of his character. Fred Thompson so far has talked the talk. He does not shy away from any hardball questions. If my memory serves me correct there used to be a thing called the truth. There are numerous reasons why people try to hide it. I for one take my right to vote as a privelege that comes with the responsibility of researching candidates in an effort to sustain/improve the blessed country we live in.Granted Fred Thompson dosen’t have a long list of rapid succession involvement in government, but that is no reason to count him out before even considering him. Contempt prior to investigation is self serving and a fools game. The person I vote for needs to have above all else character. I have to go now and see Fred Thompson.

sonnyspats1 on September 13, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 11:03 AM

The Washington insider is viewed with contempt. Thus the reason fred is trying to create a false image of himself as “old Fred”. And for the same reason, Mitt is pointing out that he is not a Washington insider. We all know that being involved in politics makes you an insider, but they are willing to accept it in local politics because the work done is done for the local folks. Whereas Washington politics is about lobbying, power, and self promotion for monetary reasons etc.

Fred et al = Washington insider
Mitt et al = Local politician unaffected by Washington politics.

That’s a big difference.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Every single thread about Fred turns into the groupies attacking little old me for trying to tell the truth about my superior deductive skills and the vacuous nature of their savior.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 9:37 AM

No offense intended, but you really can’t play the victim card here.

You start this every time by insulting everyone who supports Fred with the same points you brought up months ago. It’s natural that people will respond to you.

Esthier on September 13, 2007 at 11:13 AM

according to the agendas of Pelosi and Reed.

Tennman on September 13, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Can you imagine the horror of them under a Hillary presidency? Jeeze! It ought to be a crime just to evoke that possibility. Sorry.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:13 AM

You start this every time by insulting everyone who supports Fred with the same points you brought up months ago. It’s natural that people will respond to you.

Esthier on September 13, 2007 at 11:13 AM

No, I insult groupies. There’s a huge difference between a groupie and a Fred supporter. Yes, it is natural that people who believe themselves to be groupies would respond to me.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Another Fred thread … another Retard-A-Thon in the comments section.

thirteen28 on September 13, 2007 at 11:18 AM

No, I insult groupies. There’s a huge difference between a groupie and a Fred supporter. Yes, it is natural that people who believe themselves to be groupies would respond to me.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Actually, you insult Fred and do so in a manner that really undermines any points you might be making. This isn’t even a “you catch more flies with honey” thing. You come off as someone too biased against him to be taken seriously.

I’m not defending Fred. I don’t even know if I like him as a candidate. I’m just being honest here.

Esthier on September 13, 2007 at 11:20 AM

have not allowed us to enlighten you,

As I’ve said before, one of the things I look at when judging a candidate is the caliber of his/her supporters. I have found that those who tend to support mitt are arrogant, condescending, angry, hateful jerks who think they know better than anyone else. This post essentially proves that point.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 11:20 AM

No, I insult groupies. There’s a huge difference between a groupie and a Fred supporter. Yes, it is natural that people who believe themselves to be groupies would respond to me.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Then, another one of your many faults is you have no discernment capabilities between groupies and supporters. You throw the first one out to anyone who disagrees with you and never use the second (well, unless they are to describe the very few who were once supporters and now either have doubts or are no longer supporting them).

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 11:21 AM

He does not shy away from any hardball questions.

Granted Fred Thompson dosen’t have a long list of rapid succession involvement in government, but that is no reason to count him out before even considering him.

sonnyspats1 on September 13, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I was real hopeful there that I could ask you to report honestly on what you hear from Fred. But when you say he doesn’t shy away from hardball questions you cast serious doubt on your ability to listen to him objectively. The guy has done nothing except shy away from venues that are not scripted and safe. Just look at the last interview with Hannity. He avoided the tough questions (they really weren’t that tough), and was completely vague on most the rest. He has continued in that vein from the beginning. He obviously has not hit the ground running because he doesn’t even know where he stands on many issues (again, his admission from the Hannity interview).

Fred does have a long involvement in Washington insider politics and he is scrambling to distance himself from it.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Okay, I’m going to ask again. Why exactly is Fred qualified to be President? And in answering please talk about Fred’s accomplishments, not the characteristics of the other candidates that you don’t like. What has Fred done, actually done, that makes him the right choice to be the leader of the free world?

Has he reduced crime and welfare in Lynchburg? Did he save the Moore County Fair? Is he a war hero? What has he done, what accomplishment of note, that warrants putting him on the ticket?

Please no more comparisons to Reagan. Ronnie was the President of the SAG and ratted out the Commies in Hollywood. Then he was the cheif executive of the largest state of the union. Nice practice for POTUS.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Actually, you insult Fred
Esthier on September 13, 2007 at 11:20 AM

When Fred stops insulting us, I’ll stop insulting him. He gets what he gives.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:24 AM

As if telling the truth about him is insulting.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:24 AM

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Which Mitt supporters have remarked about Fred? I haven’t seen one yet.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:25 AM

I was real hopeful there that I could ask you to bash Fred for me, but now it looks like you are going to take a unbiased look at him which wont help my case at all.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:22 AM

There thats a little more honest……

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Pay closer attention and it will become clear. You are having a knee jerk reaction for some reason and I can only conclude that you are in fact a groupie and are bothered when you have to face that fact.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:27 AM

cddeven, what’s Mitt’s position on the zombies?

DaveS on September 13, 2007 at 11:28 AM

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:25 AM

You haven’t chosen to because you refuse to get past your own hateful, vile, condescending rhetoric. You prove my point with every one of your snarky, arrogant, condescending posts.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 11:28 AM

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 11:28 AM

If csdeven comments were just slightly less snarky, arrogant and condescending I would suspect cs of being Shillary herself.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:30 AM

When Fred stops insulting us, I’ll stop insulting him. He gets what he gives.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Oh I’m not asking you to stop. I’m only suggesting that if you tone down your comments a bit that people might actually listen.

Which Mitt supporters have remarked about Fred? I haven’t seen one yet.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:25 AM

You seem to be a Mitt supporter from everything I’ve seen. If he’s not your guy, he’s at least your top pick.

Esthier on September 13, 2007 at 11:30 AM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Strike out his words. Don’t put words in his mouth like it’s a quote. I had to go back and see if he really said that

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Pay closer attention and it will become clear.

If you pay ANY attention you might see what everyone else is saying about you.

You are having a knee jerk reaction for some reason and I can only conclude that you are in fact a groupie and are bothered when you have to face that fact.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Watching you the past several months is nothing close to kneejerk. The kneejerk reaction is that you immediately label me a groupie (without ANY sort of proof whatsoever) simply because I’m bothering to point out what an attention whore you are.

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Heh. Hate can only one so far. After a while, it just becomes noise.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM

what an attention whore you are.

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Don’t forget arrogant, condescending, hateful attention whore who views anyone who might vote for Fred a “groupie” – All that hate’s gonna eat him alive.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 11:34 AM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:26 AM

“You are the dancing queen…”

Still waiting for you to make ONE single comment about the GW hit piece.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:34 AM

If csdeven comments were just slightly less snarky, arrogant and condescending I would suspect cs of being Shillary Newt herimself.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:30 AM

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Stop talking about csdeven and talk abut Fred. What are his accomplishments? I watched his video and didn’t see anything even remotely noteworthy. Why exactly is he in this race?

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 11:40 AM

people might actually listen.

You seem to be a Mitt supporter from everything I’ve seen. If he’s not your guy, he’s at least your top pick.

Esthier on September 13, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Oh, people listen alright, they don’t like the facts they have to face but they certainly listen. Ergo, the reason why this has turned into another csdeven thread.

Meanwhile, a rational person in tommylotto has asked a serious question that you csdeven haters have refused to address for over 48 hours. You complain about my tack, yet instead of addressing someone who is acting the way you demand, you ignore him and fixate on little old csdeven.

You people are seriously screwed up.

I haven’t decided on a candidate yet. I see Rudy, Mitt, Huck, and Hunter as decent candidates.

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3