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

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

Why not?

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.


Tennman on September 13, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Rush Limbaugh and his audience knew well in advance that this bill was a disastrous and unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Why was Fred too stupid to figure this out? Oh wait, maybe it wasn’t stupidity, but pandering to the parrots who squawked for “reform”, and demanded new legislation instead of enforcing existing law – a neat game that legislators play all too often.

This legislation was nothing but a smokescreen that the Dems put up to change the subject from the Chinese fundraising scandals. And McCain and Thompson were stupid enough to fall for it, with McCain co-sponsoring this monster.

But hey, maybe you or Fred can explain how McCain-Feingold was at its inception going to do anything to stop the corruption we witnessed (and what a surprise, still see!) with the Clintons, which was the genesis of this terrible legislation.

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?

McCain HAS been attacked for McCain-Feingold, and that is one of the big reasons that conservatives do not support him and put him at the bottom of the list of preferred candidates (just above Ron Paul).

Secondly, this issue does not affect the “States”. It affects candidates, most of whom are incumbents.

Congress has not acted because they don’t have the will to do it, the Supremes validated most of it, this “reform” gave a huge fund raising advantage to Democrats by limiting hard money contributions, and the Republicans would be painted as “corrupt” by the MSM if they tried to rewrite it.

The genie is out of the bottle.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 11:41 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

ACK! I just spit coffee through my nose. Stop! Twelve lashes with a wet noodle!

Tennman on September 13, 2007 at 11:45 AM

It is apparent to me, that conservatives take the election for a president more seriously than the dems/libs. Dems appear to vote lock-step, whereas the conservatives/republicans screen and vet, vigorously their candidate of choice. I would like to interject from a historical perspective, that most presidents elected have been governors. Whether this will be a shoe-in for Romney, I don’t know. However this all plays out, you all are better informed than I as to who is the best conservative candidate ultimately.

captivated_dem on September 13, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Dems appear to vote lock-step, whereas the conservatives/republicans screen and vet, vigorously their candidate of choice.

Well I think we have only two constituencies. Conservative Republicans and WSJ Republicans. So we have a 50/50 chance of getting our favorite on the ticket.

Dems have hundreds of constituencies. Not much chance of getting a lesbian green,for ex., so you go with the flow without asking too many questions. IMO

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Secondly, this issue does not affect the “States”. It affects candidates, most of whom are incumbents.

My pardon. I meant since the states were the ones who select the electoral college, where the real election is, the states should be hollering about the unfair advantage of one side over the other, if there is such a thing.

Interesting if you look at the most money being raised, it’s also being spent. The money on hand, the war chests, are not filling up in reserve for when they’re really needed.

I’m not a defender of McCain-Feingold. I don’t like it. I think Fred had a real miscalculation about how it would be used. It’s not a make-or-break issue with me. But since I make no secret of my support for FDT, it shouldn’t come as any surprise to you, right?

Tennman on September 13, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Just out of curiosity I did a quick google search to see the bio of Abraham Lincoln. I wanted to see what his accomplishments were prior to being President. He was never a governor, got beat repeatedly in his runs for the Senate, and in many ways was an abject failure. Yet he not only became our 16th President, he saved the Union through a very difficult time – a civil war, as I recall. Today we view him as one of our greatest Presidents ever.

Now, I’m not suggesting that Fred is Lincoln, or Reagan, but I am suggesting we give him a chance to either rise to the top or sink.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Every single thread about Fred turns into the groupies everyone attacking laughing at 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

Fixed that for you.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Last time folks –

Don’t feed the trolls!

They fear the Fred!

No candidate is perfect and no candidate is guaranteed to beat Hillary, so GET OVER IT.

omnipotent on September 13, 2007 at 11:56 AM

For all of you who say this isn’t a deal breaker, isn’t rewriting and reinterpreting the constitution a deal breaker? McCain-Feingold is just as abhorrent as Roe V. Wade in that respect.

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Thanks for the link. Thompson and McCain joined the Democrats and moderates RINOS like Collins, Snowe, Lugar, Specter, and the like. The only one that surprises me is Domenici of New Mexico and possibly Warner of Virginia.

You’ll note that consistent conservatives like George Allen voted NAY.

Granted Fred Thompson dosen’t have a long list of rapid succession involvement in government

sonnyspats1 on September 13, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Can anyone translate that for me?

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 11:58 AM

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 11:53 AM

I specifically asked that you not make the comparison to Reagan, so you doubled down and made the comparison to Lincoln, great. Ceasar had no accomplishments of note until he conquered Gaul.

Talk about Fred please, and try not to embarass both of us.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Talk about Fred please, and try not to embarass both of us.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 11:58 AM

You’re a lawyer, you cant be embarrassed…

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:00 PM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Oh and just for you…Fred=Reagan+Lincoln… :P

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:01 PM

You Mitt-wits better start throwing some more money at Mitt. His ship is sinking fast, he needs more money. He has several kids to support, now that they are not working not consulting driving RV’s around the country. Doing their duty to secure America in a time of need, just like their dad did during the Vietnam war when he took the fight flight mission to France.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:01 PM

You’re a lawyer, you cant be embarrassed…

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Cute, but that’s about me, not Fred. I’m not running for POTUS.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Cute, but that’s about me, not Fred. I’m not running for POTUS.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Cute but true…

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Anyone care to start a pool as to when csdeven gets arrested for stalking?

The funniest thing is watching the fuming, toxic clouds belching from one side of this argument, and the mild fanning to keep it away from the other side.

Now, where have we seen that pattern before?

Merovign on September 13, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Anyone care to start a pool as to when csdeven gets arrested for stalking?

When he get’s picked for VP, this thread will be helpful.

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 12:09 PM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 11:58 AM

You obvoiusly completely missed the whole point of my post. What, do I have to draw a picture, or write in crayon? My point, specifically, was that Lincoln was an abject failure most of his life, was never elected governor of anything, yet got elected President and is considered to be one of our greates Presidents. Many have said Fred has never been a governor, so is therefore, automatically disqualified to be President. My point, spefically, is let’s see what he does and let him either rise to the top or fall on his own.

Talk about knee-jerk reactions…

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Well I think we have only two constituencies. Conservative Republicans and WSJ Republicans.

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:50 AM

I beg to differ. I love the Wall Street Journal, and I’m quite sure they opposed McCain-Feingold, but I was adamantly opposed to immigration “reform”.

I doubt that I am an anomaly in that respect, and I certainly consider myself a conservative.

captivated_dem on September 13, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Your point about us vigorously vetting the candidates is true, but the definition of “conservative” is open to debate. I think Romney is more conservative than Fred. Fred supporters disagree. I would vote for Guiliani despite his pro-choice positions because in the areas where he can actually make a difference his conservative credentials are outstanding.

It is interesting that all of us are proud of being on the right and “conservatives” while the Dems try to run from the “liberal” tag and pretend that they are “moderates” when they are overwhelmingly far to the Left.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 12:10 PM

csdeven on September 13, 2007 at 9:01 AM

You confuse me for a Fredhead. I will admit that out of the big 3 (would be 4 if McCain got off the mat), I would lean toward Thompson. However, by far my first choice is Duncan Hunter.

steveegg on September 13, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Merovign on September 13, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Merovign, you seem like a rational person, just fanning away the toxic csdeven fumes. Maybe you can tell me. What accomplishment of note makes Fred worthy of being elected President?

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Dems have hundreds of constituencies. Not much chance of getting a lesbian green,for ex., so you go with the flow without asking too many questions. IMO

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Having 100′s of constituencies to satisfy is why most of the Dem candidates come across as disingenuous. An appeal to each results in a panderfest that looks ridiculous.

captivated_dem on September 13, 2007 at 12:13 PM

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:01 PM

How’s that research project going on Mitt’s kids? Did you ever figure out which one it was who worked as a consultant for Monster.Com?

I believe you said his name was “Bill Romney”.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 12:15 PM

I beg to differ. I love the Wall Street Journal, and I’m quite sure they opposed McCain-Feingold, but I was adamantly opposed to immigration “reform”.

I doubt that I am an anomaly in that respect, and I certainly consider myself a conservative.

Not an anomaly at all. Describes me also. But when the WSJ’s open borders position became clear to me, my love went to “loved”, and I canceled my 25 year long subscription.

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Doh…I smell some serious pain coming up fast for csdeven, tommylotto, Buy Danish, and BKennedy…Holy Carp, this is going to leave a mark…Heads explode in 5…4…3…2…1…

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1

Thursday, September 13, 2007
Advertisment

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday brings good news for Fred Thompson and John McCain in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

For the third straight day, Thompson is the top choice for 28% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. For the first time all year, Rudy Giuliani has fallen below the 20% level of support and is now the favorite for just 19%. Arizona Senator John McCain moves up to 13% and now has a three-point advantage over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 10%. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee remains atop the second tier at 5% (see recent daily numbers).

Thompson now leads Giuliani by 14 percentage points among political conservatives. It will be interesting to see how long the Thompson bounce can be sustained and if it translates into success in key states.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:16 PM

My point, spefically, is let’s see what he does and let him either rise to the top or fall on his own.
jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Crayons are not necessary. So, your point is that there is nothing noteworthy in Fred’s past, but we should just have blind faith, elect him anyway, and hope we get lucky like we did 140 years ago… Did I miss anything?

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:17 PM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Yeah, but it would fall on deaf ears.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Saw that, but Gallup says something different. One of the reasons I hate polls.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:23 PM

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

Hey, I’m not militant. It isn’t my fault that Fred has funnelled PAC money to his son, that’s Fred’s doing.

It isn’t my fault Fred always lobbied for the big guy instead of the little guy, that’s Fred’s doing.

And it isn’t my fault that Fred supported McCain-Feingold all the way to the end, that’s Fred’s doing.

Why should I vote for a man who fights for the big and powerful, be it the washington establishment or asbestos compannies, when there are less corrupt, less tainted options out there?

Any support Fred lost from me was because of what he has done and who he is, and nothing more.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Not much chance of getting a lesbian green,for ex., so you go with the flow without asking too many questions. IMO

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:50 AM

I missed that! Maybe Hillary’s slogan should be: Don’t ask don’t tell

Anyway, I disagree with the premise that they have all these different constituencies. They may have hundreds of different pet causes, but they agree on everything – global Warming, gay marriage, abortion rights, confiscatory taxes, government health care, cut and run from Iraq, et cetera.

Indeed, I’ve always marveled at how, say, all pro-choice Democrats also buy Global Warming hook, line and sinker.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 12:25 PM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:16 PM

All the more reason to confront the deluded Rebubbakins and explain to them that they are being irrational.

Still waiting for that accomplishment…

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Saw that, but Gallup says something different. One of the reasons I hate polls.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Heh heh yea, I saw the Gallup poll as well and got a good laugh at it. Reminded me of the “Dewy wins” headline. Rasmussen has constantly been the most accurate pollster on events in American politics, no one else even comes close, Gallup is only one step above Zogby when it comes to being wrong.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Thompson now leads Giuliani by 14 percentage points among political conservatives. It will be interesting to see how long the Thompson bounce can be sustained and if it translates into success in key states.
doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Wow doriangray, I’m shocked, absolutely painfully shocked that Guiliani is losing by fourteen percentage points in a constituency he hasn’t taken any action to pull to his side to a man whose sole platform has been to cow in social cons with his shiny Folkswagon rhetoric.

Call me when the earth no longer rotates around the sun.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:28 PM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Amen.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM

tommylotto:

I’m not a Fred! guy, but if I was I suspect I’d point to his successful campaigning history and media contacts (ya gotta get there first), detail his legislative history and past philosophical statements and actions that support them (particularly his finance committee work and commentary on federalism and budget concerns), and run through some quick reviews of his legal cases and later legislative work (like the review of the whole Chinese Influence Thing a few years back).

But there’d be no point, because you’re not actually looking for those answers, otherwise you’d use Google. You’re looking to make a junior-high-school debate-team-reject point, knowing that you’re not ACTUALLY debating “Fred! groupies,” and thus counting on not having any cooperation with your homework request.

Did I miss anything?

Merovign on September 13, 2007 at 12:30 PM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Fine, you be a proud supporter of those who bastardize the First Amendment. I’m not going to join you in that effort. I don’t call myself “Buy Danish” for nothing.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 12:30 PM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Or it could be time for you cs and the other anti-Fredheads to join the democratic party because you are obviously never going to admit that you are wrong and Fred is the best candidate. You might as well put a Shillary sign in your front yard.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

But there’d be no point, because you’re not actually looking for those answers, otherwise you’d use Google. You’re looking to make a junior-high-school debate-team-reject point, knowing that you’re not ACTUALLY debating “Fred! groupies,” and thus counting on not having any cooperation with your homework request.

Did I miss anything?

Merovign on September 13, 2007 at 12:30 PM

No, I think you said it quite well.

Way to go!

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Anyway, I disagree with the premise that they have all these different constituencies. They may have hundreds of different pet causes, but they agree on everything – global Warming, gay marriage, abortion rights, confiscatory taxes, government health care, cut and run from Iraq, et cetera.

They “agree”, but they don’t know why they do, and they don’t know anything factual about any of those topics. They don’t dig into them. They just don’t want to be kicked out of the tent, because as a tiny minority, they’re essentially alone.

That was the point of the original post I was commenting on. That Republicans vet their candidates and examine issues, while Dems don’t really do either.

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

They refuse to let you enlighten them!

:-}

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Or it could be time for you cs and the other anti-Fredheads to join the democratic party because you are obviously never going to admit that you are wrong and Fred is the best candidate. You might as well put a Shillary sign in your front yard.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Well, I know Fred is the best as lying, obfuscating, and projecting a false image, but why should I vote for that, doriangrey?

Maybe if Fred was better at it than Hillary I would, but he isn’t so I won’t vote for the man who will be out-Freded by Hillary.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Yeah, but it would fall on deaf ears.
jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Let me take a stab at what you think I’m overlooking. “I like Fred’s positions and his ability to connect with regular folks. I trust him because he is one of “us”, not part of what AZCON would call the big city “spaghetti and bagels” wing of the Republican party.”

How’s that?

Quite an accomplishment I might add — pulling the wool over the eyes of that many Rebubbakins.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:37 PM

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Yea right…better put some ice on your forehead, that Rasmussen poll is going to leave a really really big bruise.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Well it is either, Ben, Craig, Josh, Matt, or Tagg.

Not Tagg, because he is now a consultant for Mitt I believe. One of them is driving an RV around “serving our country”, Ben was a consultant, I don’t know what the others are doing. Do you? I believe most are probably now on the fathers payroll.
Either way, I know that Mitt is proud of his son’s “serving America” by campaigning for him. I think Mitt got a better deal going to France during the war. Either way, the Romneys are safe at home defending us.

Why do you ask, his son was a consultant for Monster (as reported in the Phoenix), if you knew the name would you withdraw support for Mitt? Or do you want others to do your research.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:39 PM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Missed he mark, again. Keep guessing.

Rebubbakins

You sure sound like one of those wacky-weeds at Kos or HuffPo…

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:40 PM

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 12:37 PM

“I like Fred’s positions and his ability to connect with regular folks. I trust him because he is one of “us”, not part of what AZCON would call the big city “spaghetti and bagels” wing of the Republican party.”

Oh, and by the way, don’t put into quotes something I never said or wrote…

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:42 PM

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Yea right…better put some ice on your forehead, that Rasmussen poll is going to leave a really really big bruise.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Wow doriangray, you sound just like Hillary Clinton – you’re poll-guided. No wonder you support Fred. Oh, the schemes to screw the taxpayer out of influence they could come up with together.

Next you’re going to tell me that Hillary Clinton is 30 points up over Mike Huckabee on Nanny-Stater votes. That would be a shocking revalation too.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Wow doriangray, you sound just like Hillary Clinton – you’re poll-guided. No wonder you support Fred. Oh, the schemes to screw the taxpayer out of influence they could come up with together.

Next you’re going to tell me that Hillary Clinton is 30 points up over Mike Huckabee on Nanny-Stater votes. That would be a shocking revalation too.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM

No, I’m just throwing a little salt and lemon juice on your freshly opened wound, kind of since I have been telling you all along that this is exactly what was going to happen.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:46 PM

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

Why would a single issue second amendment voter care about free speech issues? I think you are confusing the amendments like you confused Fred’s 20 hours billed lobbying for a pro-choice group with being pro-choice.

My grandfather was a prosecutor and, later, a defense attorney and I learned that working on behalf of someone or some cause is different than supporting them. When push came to shove Fred voted pro-life.

You are the one who is distorting facts to fit into manic hatred.

Bill C on September 13, 2007 at 12:49 PM

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

As a White Sox fan I know that all Cubs fans are not really fans of baseball but rather fans of getting S*** faced in a pretty ballpark. Ask Lee Elia. /Semi-kidding

Bill C on September 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM

As a White Sox fan I know that all Cubs fans are not really fans of baseball but rather also fans of getting S*** faced in a pretty ballpark. Ask Lee Elia. /Semi-kidding

Bill C on September 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Hate to tell you this, but at least 1/2 of all baseball fans fall under that description…

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Its only a matter of time until the long knives start to come out for our buddy Fred. The only question is who is weilding them. If the knife attacks are coming through the NYTimes from the Hillary campaign we will know Fred is a threat to them/asset to Republicans. If the attacks are coming through NRO, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc and Hillary is silent then we will know Fred is more of a problem for the Republicans then an asset.

Polls at this point are completely meaningless. Much will change between today and election day. Its the equivalent of the Global Warming zealots attempting to predict the future climate of the planet based on temp readings from this decade.

Zetterson on September 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Or it could be time for you cs and the other anti-Fredheads to join the democratic party because you are obviously never going to admit that you are wrong and Fred is the best candidate. You might as well put a Shillary sign in your front yard.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

What an obnoxious statement. Tell me, what’s your expertise that makes you the expert on who can win this election?

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

See above^^^.

They “agree”, but they don’t know why they do, and they don’t know anything factual about any of those topics.


JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

The “why” is because they think their positions make them sweeter, more “tolerant”, “peace loving”, and caring than us, but it’s true that the have no grasp of “facts” and are easily swayed by transparent propaganda.

Why do you ask, his son was a consultant for Monster (as reported in the Phoenix), if you knew the name would you withdraw support for Mitt? Or do you want others to do your research.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:39 PM

LOL. No, I am merely pointing out that you have made a slew of allegations and have not been able to substantiate a single one of them, and you are now adding a new one to the pot your pipe.

By the way, can you tell me what Fred’s military service consisted of since YOU seem to think it’s important?

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Merovign on September 13, 2007 at 12:30 PM

I realize that you were trying to engage me, with out seeming like you were trying, because you stayed away from specifics and relied on impressive sounding vaugaries. But since I’ve waited for a long time, and you are the closest person to have even attempted to explain why he is even in the race, here goes:

successful campaigning history and media contacts (ya gotta get there first),

So, he won two campaigns with Tennessee voters. Not particularly impressive compared to the other candidates that won more elections and in more hostile states. Mitt and Rudy ran and won as conservatives in blue areas for example.

detail his legislative history

CFR which he admits was a mistake

and past philosophical statements and actions that support them (particularly his finance committee work and commentary on federalism and budget concerns)

Philosophical statements are not really an accomplishment. It is just stating your political position – like when he said he was pro-choice, or when he said he was in favor of a path to citizenship for illegals.
Actions – he let Clinton get away with criminal conduct

and run through some quick reviews of his legal cases

He was a lawyer, but his legal career is insignificant compared to Rudy’s — unless you add the Law & Order stuff.

and later legislative work (like the review of the whole Chinese Influence Thing a few years back).

Again, he let Clinton get away with it.

The only significant accomplishes that Fred has are negatives.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Oh, and by the way, don’t put into quotes something I never said or wrote…
jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:42 PM

The quote was preceded by the statement, “Let me take a stab at what you think I’m overlooking” No one would have thought that statement was attributed to you and you know it. The quotes were to make sure the statement was not attributed to me!!!

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Others of the final tally of 53 corporate sponsors were already under Romney and Bain Capital’s influence. Marriott is led by close family friends — now campaign finance co-chairs; plus, Romney was sitting on the company’s board at the time. Sealy, which Bain Capital owned, became a sponsor. So did Monster.com, where one of Romney’s sons worked as a consultant…

From this series of articles, explaining what a fine example Mitt the businessman is.
http://thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=45260&page=1

Thanks for reminding me about his son(probably not Ben because he was in school I think), and about this article and the series. It was an education on where Mitt gets his money and power. It also shows how “he” saved the Olympics, and how this is now coming home to roost. What was that line in the Godfather?…some day I will ask you for a favor…

Looks like some heavy hitters will be asking for favors.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Rebubbakins

You sure sound like one of those wacky-weeds at Kos or HuffPo…

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 12:40 PM

You explain for me then, why an unqualified Hollywood/Washington Insider like Fred is doing so well in the polls if he is not playing on the stereotypical ignorance or the rural Republican voter.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM

No, I’m just throwing a little salt and lemon juice on your freshly opened wound, kind of since I have been telling you all along that this is exactly what was going to happen.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Fred announced his cadidacy approx. one week ago. Since you Fredheads were all about waiting, waiting, waiting for Fred, I suggest we wait until October before we start attributing increases in polls to anything more than a post-announcement bounce.

Consider that in a week we haven’t heard anything of real substance from Fred, just some hemming and hawing and misdirection. People might deal with that for a little while, even if Fred has been teasing for the last few months, but they aren’t going to wait for Fred to start making sense forever.

BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM

tommylotto:

Minor error in your piece, I was not trying to engage you, I was trying to point out that you were part of the noxious vapors people were fanning at.

Sorry for any confusion I may have created by not falsely attributing statements to you with creative quote usage.

Merovign on September 13, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Pot meet Kettle..bla bla bla…

Again, he let Clinton get away with it.

The only significant accomplishes that Fred has are negatives.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Typical lawyer, no wonder lawyers have an even lower approval rating than congress. You as a lawyer above anyone else posting here know just how dishonest that statement is. Fred didn’t let anyone get away with anything. Every time he called a witness they either fled the country to China (no extradition) or pled the fifth. No testimony=no evidence=no possibility of a conviction.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Why would a single issue second amendment voter care about free speech issues?


Bill C on September 13, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Why not indeed! I mean, what does the First Amendment matter? Easy come, easy go, it’s a “living constitution” after all.

Zetterson on September 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Well said.

Again, he let Clinton get away with it.


tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM

It’s actually worse than letting the Clinton’s getting away with it, when one realizes that McCain-Feingold was a direct result and Fred was an early proponent of this “reform”.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Typical lawyer, no wonder lawyers have an even lower approval rating than congress.

Dude. Let’s not get into insulting one another’s professions to support our arguments.

And no, I’m not a lawyer.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:11 PM

You explain for me then, why an unqualified Hollywood/Washington Insider like Fred is doing so well in the polls if he is not playing on the stereotypical ignorance or the rural Republican voter.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Because only the democrats are listening to people like you (those employing the politics of personal destruction), and the democrats aren’t counted in Republican polls. In fact I would hazard a guess that instead of turning conservatives away from Fred you and the other anti-Fredheads are convincing the conservatives who haven’t made up their minds about Fred to view him in a much more favorable light.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM

stereotypical ignorance or the rural Republican voter.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Hmmm. You sure know how to make friends and influence people. Insults will get you no points with me, hoss.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Anyway, I disagree with the premise that they have all these different constituencies. They may have hundreds of different pet causes, but they agree on everything – global Warming, gay marriage, abortion rights, confiscatory taxes, government health care, cut and run from Iraq, et cetera.
They “agree”, but they don’t know why they do, and they don’t know anything factual about any of those topics. They don’t dig into them. They just don’t want to be kicked out of the tent, because as a tiny minority, they’re essentially alone.

That was the point of the original post I was commenting on. That Republicans vet their candidates and examine issues, while Dems don’t really do either.

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Global warming : True but not man-made.
Gay marriage : No.
Abortion rights : Pro-Life.
Confiscatory taxes : limited taxes for vital government functions.
Government health care : Private sector health care with limited government assistance.
Cut and run from Iraq : No way.
Social Security : Begin privatization.
Conservation : A conservative value. Simple stewardship.
Energy : A good mix of all sources.
Immigration : Legal, border security, internal enforcement, deportation by attrition and intervention.
Islam: Not a religion of peace.
WOT : Let’s raise it up a notch or two.
What else do I need to work on?

captivated_dem on September 13, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Dude. Let’s not get into insulting one another’s professions to support our arguments.

And no, I’m not a lawyer.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:11 PM

What he said was completely dishonest, the kind of dishonesty that produces the parsing of the word “is” and that kind of dishonest is the living environment of lawyers and politicians. So no it really isn’t surprising that a lawyer would stoop to it or that the public would find so little approval of lawyers.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:17 PM

So no it really isn’t surprising that a lawyer would stoop to it or that the public would find so little approval of lawyers.

But Thompson is a lawyer.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:19 PM

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM

The difference between my arguments and yours are that mine are based on recorded history while you are trying to predict the future based on some mysterious predictive power you believe you possess, along with the use of largely meaningless poll numbers. And you behave like a child in sandbox.

So, considering your juvenile and completely unsubstantive response I will go out on a limb and add that not only was that particular comment “obnoxious” but you are an obnoxious person.

You could prove me wrong, but that would take some “reform” on your part which I don’t anticipate will be forthcoming. And that is as far as I will go in predicting the future.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:20 PM

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.

Limerick on September 13, 2007 at 9:09 AM

I agree. I think this is key.

Exit Question Bounceback: See-Dubya, are you a fan of Dorothy Sayers? I ask that because to me the word piffle will always bring to mind Lord Peter.

INC on September 13, 2007 at 1:26 PM

But Thompson is a lawyer.


Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Ha Ha. I guess doriengrey is going to have to find another candidate now. Maybe he can consult a Ouija Board for advice.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:26 PM

But Thompson is a lawyer.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Hah hah hah yea, imagine that, and a politician and an actor. All three of them have pretty damn low general public approval rating right now, and yet…somehow Fred manages to be extremely popular, go figure…

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:27 PM

But Thompson is a lawyer.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:19 PM

But that would mean that he had to complete what, 8 – 12 years of college? That would mean the man has some intelligence, right? But that can’t be, because all you Fred-haters say Fred is too stoopid to do anything or know anything, and he’s too lazy to finish anything…

Kinda like the way Bush is too stupid to know the difference between up and down, but is so diabolical he can make a hurricane hit New Orleans…

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM

“Slew of allegations” all backed by links. Take it up with the publishers of the Phoenix.

That is the third time I have posted that link for you. You keep saying you can’t find it. Have someone else hold your hand.

And here is a news flash for you…I don’t care if Fred is elected or not, I do know he did not spend his Vietnam days in France. The service isn’t the issue, many great men have not served, it is the way they get out of serving, that is the problem. Now Mitt’s kids are serving the country by campaigning for their dad…that makes me feel safe.
It would be better if he just said, “I don’t want my kids to serve because (pick one);
I don’t want them in harms way
I want them to serve the church first
They are afraid
They don’t believe in the military
They have other priorities
They are just kids
They don’t care
They don’t want to be away from home
They have a physical disability
The country needs them here, more than there
Military are for the uneducated
Romney’s don’t serve, they send
All five want to stay together and the military won’t let them serve together
The military is low class
Governors sons never serve

One of those must fit.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 1:28 PM

But that would mean that he had to complete what, 8 – 12 years of college? That would mean the man has some intelligence, right? But that can’t be, because all you Fred-haters say Fred is too stoopid to do anything or know anything, and he’s too lazy to finish anything…

Actually, I’ve never said any such thing. I’m not especially fond of lawyers myself (sorry tommylotto). All I was saying is that we should not judge people, be they commenters or candidates, based on their profession.

And I’m not one of these “Fred-haters” people keep mentioning, either. At present, I prefer another candidate, but am willing to keep an open mind based on how Thompson performs in the debates and on the campaign trail.

So I would ask that in the future, you refrain from taking out the wide brush when seeking to define others on this board.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Hah hah hah yea, imagine that, and a politician and an actor.

So Fred can’t hold down a job! :-)

Kidding, kidding…

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM

So I would ask that in the future, you refrain from taking out the wide brush when seeking to define others on this board.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Tell it to the manic, hyper Fred-haters on this board, who engage in all manner of arrogant condescension whenever Fred is mentioned.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM

I can only guess that tommylotto’s basis for asking about experience is that he is for Romney or Rudy. As a governor and mayor, they have executive experience. I think such experience is a good thing, but I don’t give an automatic bid because of said experience.

I also find dorian’s and others’ retorts about comparing past presidents’ experience equally valid. Many great presidents didn’t have executive experience. Likewise, many terrible presidents did. Experience helps, but shouldn’t be a defining factor.

If you look at the top three democrat contenders, none have as much legislative experience (or at the very least, time incurred) as Thompson. So, if we can’t compare Thompson “lack of experience” to past presidents, can we at least compare it to his competition on the other side?

I think many Republican candidates have good experience and good things about their stands and philosophies. That said, I think each and every one of them is quite flawed in at least one way.

What I find incredible is that now that Fred’s finally in and he finally has a chance to tell people what he believes in and what he says he wants to do, very few are willing to keep an open mind and consider it all.

I like Fred, but I’m not sold on him (and certainly not a ‘groupie’), but I’m also not sold on anyone else either. But, I do know that any Republican is going to be better than every Democrat and that’s the most important thing to remember here. It seems there’s a lot of eating our young going on here.

Why can’t we give the candidates a chance to stake their claim and then see where the chips fall?

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Tell it to the manic, hyper Fred-haters on this board, who engage in all manner of arrogant condescension whenever Fred is mentioned.

I don’t see how their behavior comes into your mistaken assumptions about me at all.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Well said.

Zetterson on September 13, 2007 at 1:41 PM

But, I do know that any Republican is going to be better than every Democrat

With the possible exception of Ron Paul, who I think is just weapons-grade crazy.

Seriously, though, good point. The primary is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Actually, I’ve never said any such thing. I’m not especially fond of lawyers myself (sorry tommylotto). All I was saying is that we should not judge people, be they commenters or candidates, based on their profession.

And I’m not one of these “Fred-haters” people keep mentioning, either. At present, I prefer another candidate, but am willing to keep an open mind based on how Thompson performs in the debates and on the campaign trail.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:31 PM

The point here being that he is a lawyer and as a lawyer he knew just how dishonest he was being and it is that percieved dishonesty that has placed them in the position of public disapproval they they currently enjoy and his action reinforce that stereotype that lawyers cant be trusted to be honest or even when they are being honest it is by parsing definitions like the meaning of “is”.

More importantly is the very key issue of the politics of personal destruction being employed by the anti-Fredheads. Like you I have a preferred candidate but not withstanding that preference I have not said one single insulting thing about any other candidate have made no attempts to dissuade anyone from supporting their preferred candidate and do keep an open mind regarding other candidates.

I have a number of candidates that I like other than Fred, but I rank them not according to how much I like them or their politics but on their chances of getting the nomination or winning the general election.

So Fred can’t hold down a job! :-)

Kidding, kidding…

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM

No, he just manages to hold down three…How the hell does a guy so lazy do that???

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Slublog,

Of course, you are right. Ron Paul needs to get lost in the Fire Swamp and found by some R.O.U.S.’s.

Darksean on September 13, 2007 at 1:46 PM

I don’t see how their behavior comes into your mistaken assumptions about me at all.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:39 PM

A lot of thin skins here today. At no time was I referring to YOU, specifically, or personally. I was referring to the constant Fred-bashing that is gouing on.

But it seems to be okay to refer to fred supporters as stupid, groupies, ignorant, whatever. (I’m not referring to you, specificaally, so don’t get all worked up) My response to you is that if you are going to say this to me, then you should also tell others the same.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 1:48 PM

What else do I need to work on?

captivated_dem on September 13, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Hell, prob. 3/4 of us were once Democrats. You just haven’t taken the ring off yet. Use soap.

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 1:49 PM

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

Spot on.

Beth A. on September 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Seriously, though, good point. The primary is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:42 PM

See thats the point, with the exception of the anti-Fredheads the vast majority here recognize that no candidate is perfect. For one reason or another we choose to support one candidate or another but make no attempt to demolish those who we do not support.

We argue our case attempting to show that the candidate of our choice has the least fatal flaws and the greatest assets. Hoping that once a candidate is nominated that all the other conservatives will do what we will do, which is support the “conservative” republican candidate regardless of whether the candidate nominated was our preferred candidate.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:54 PM

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 1:48 PM

No thin skin here. I would just prefer not to be tarred with the rather wide brush you’re wielding.

And as for saying this to you rather than those “Fred-bashers,” forgive me if I took the words “you Fred-haters” in response to one of my comments and mistakenly thought you were including me among their number.

Guess I was wrong.

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:56 PM

slew of allegations all backed up by links.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 1:28 PM

There is only one link that is germane to your unfounded allegations about Mitt’s son. I read that Boston Phoenix story and you claim to have read it, but you seem to be having difficulty understanding it.

This is the sum total of what that piece said:

Sealy, which Bain Capital owned, became a sponsor. So did Monster.com, where one of Romney’s sons worked as a consultant.

From that you idiotically decided that Bain owned Monster (not true) and that Mitt got his unnamed son a job at Monster (not a scintilla of evidence).

As for the rest of your babbling, if you think that going on a 2 year mission, or helping your father in his campaign for the Presidency, are slurs to someone’s character, then you have a very odd idea of what constitutes character.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:58 PM

We argue our case attempting to show that the candidate of our choice has the least fatal flaws and the greatest assets. Hoping that once a candidate is nominated that all the other conservatives will do what we will do, which is support the “conservative” republican candidate regardless of whether the candidate nominated was our preferred candidate.

That’s my plan. No matter who wins, he will be better than Clinton II.

Clinton II. Heh. Sounds like a movie sequel.

First they came for your wallets…now they want your soul!

Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 1:59 PM

George Will lost all credibility with this article when he used an out of context quote to lie about what Fred said.

He used the quote from the Hannity interview to make it look like Fred said he wasn’t familiar with the position of other candidate’s views, but if you listen to the interview or read the transcript, it’s clear that Fred was saying that he hadn’t spent much time talking about the positions of other Republican candidates because he wanted to talk about his own.

Now that George Will is using the dishonest tactics of Maureen Dowd, he’s no longer a credible source on the subject.

Hollowpoint on September 13, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Spot on.

Beth A. on September 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM

The whole point is, if he’s going to dry up, it has to happen before he wins the nomination. It will be too late if it happens against Hillary.

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Hollowpoint on September 13, 2007 at 2:06 PM

GW lost all credibility with me long ago.

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Hollowpoint on September 13, 2007 at 2:06 PM

I saw that interview, twice. Sounded like he didn’t know how to respond to that question and didn’t have the facts about the other candidates. He could have stated one or two ways in which he differed with the others, and then said that he preferred to focus on his own message.

Similarly, he flubbed the due process on Osama question.
Similarly, he flubbed the when I’m in VA questions about church going. He’s trying not to slip up, but in so doing he is revealing a lack of philosophy. That’s how some other candidates are running their campaigns, but not want I expect to see from someone touted as the next Reagan.

JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 2:12 PM

You explain for me then, why an unqualified Hollywood/Washington Insider like Fred is doing so well in the polls if he is not playing on the stereotypical ignorance or the rural Republican voter.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM

u republicans r dum, lol.

Psst… your East Coast elitist douchebaggery is showing.

Hollowpoint on September 13, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Thanks for cheery picking my comment and slamming me. Should I keep holding my breath waiting for that apology?

Bill C on September 13, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Will’s written three columns bashing Fred.

When you’re that little you have to do it 3 times to be noticed.

Fred or no Fred, Will’s always been too full of himself.

Donaldson knows who ridiculed him the most, and who ended up on top, after their verbal brawls.

Entelechy on September 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 1:58 PM

I said his son was a consultant for Monster, and the article said that. Sounds like I understand it as well as you. He was a consultant for Monster.com. If you don’t like or believe it, write the Phoenix.

I don’t whine about you quoting MediaMatters anti-Fred talking points.

I did mistate that Bain owned Monster (and corrected that, making a correction is something foreign to you), the owner of Monster is a personal friend of Mitt’s. So you think Mitt’s son got the job without the friend knowing, okay, big deal. If a close personal friend had his son apply for a job at the company you owned, you would not know, okay, if that’s important for you to believe.

I didn’t “slur”, that is your word. I just think it is foolish to compare (and an insult to our military) campaigning for Mitt is equal to serving in the military during war. Mitt already stated at least two different postitions on his service, now he is making excuses for his patriotic (his words) sons. He should just say, “I don’t want them to serve”. And be honest and upfront.

Why don’t you just move on, worry about how your Mitt is doing in the polls.

What I listed is some of the reasons why Mitt is sinking, the others is because his supporters are so strident they can’t see the truth.

Send him some money, his Olympic friends depend on it.

right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Typical lawyer, no wonder lawyers have an even lower approval rating than congress. You as a lawyer above anyone else posting here know just how dishonest that statement is. Fred didn’t let anyone get away with anything.
doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM

The WP differes

Sen. Fred D. Thompson’s investigation of campaign wrongdoing came in with grand expectations but ended with a whimper, wrapping up without proving Chinese espionage, influence peddling or extortion, and leaving the Clinton administration largely intact.

Also, approval ratings for lawyers blow away Congress. Lawyers are completely trusted by 18% and somewhat trustes by 62%.

I wonder how lobbyists for abortion groups, dictators and asbestos companies would fare in that poll.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 2:49 PM


Bill C on September 13, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Apologize for what? You said:

Why would a single issue second amendment voter care about free speech issues?

I’m not a mind reader. If I misunderstood what you meant (and I only see one way to read that sentence) then you can revise it to make yourself clear, or in some way explain yourself.

Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 2:56 PM

I wonder how lobbyists for abortion groups, dictators and asbestos companies would fare in that poll.

tommylotto on September 13, 2007 at 2:49 PM

WP is wrong and you know it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Lack of cooperation

Congressional investigators said that the investigations were hamstrung due to lack of co-operation of witnesses. Ninety-four people either refused to be questioned, pled the Fifth Amendment, or left the country altogether.

For you a lawyer to quote the WP is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3