And the context, according to your own link, is that Fred Thompson convinced the dems to accede to some republican demands to raise hard money limits (and on the Senate floor, Thompson made the point that hard money donations are equivalent to free speech). Again, CFR was a rare lapse of judgement for Thompson, but the story is more ambiguous than you portray.
Wow, can a "lapse" last throughout a political career, and up until this very hour? Because that's the story of Fred Thompson and the attack on the First Amendment known as campaign finance reform.
..but the story is more ambiguous than you portray.
Actually, it's not.
In my opinion, Fred Thompson in 2001 was a LOT like John McCain, but without the craziness. I don’t think that is altogether bad — McCain is well-liked, a good number of his positions are strongly conservative, he crosses the social conservative/fiscal conservative boundary well.
There are differences between the candidates, and so far as I can tell all those differences fall in Thompson’s favor. It’s just my opinion, but for people who generally liked McCain on the war but would oppose him for his crazy habits like the gang of 14 and anti-torture stuff should find Thompson a much more palatable candidate.
I don’t think I agree with Thompson on everything. But I think there’s enough that I could not only vote for him, but could happily go door to door for him and sell him to my friends and neighbors. I could send him my money, and be happy when he was elected.
With Rudy, I’d be embarrased to admit I was supporting him, I’d have to fight against his positions on many issues, I’d feel cheap giving him money, and even if I voted for him I wouldn’t be happy if he won, just relieved that the democrat lost.