Posted on 03/22/2007 9:40:54 AM PDT by quidnunc
In a March 3 memo, the Senior Minority Counsel on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee outlines for Sen. John Glenn (Ohio) what he hopes will be the ranking Democrat's contribution to the Asiagate investigation — 11 subpoenas on conservative activist groups. The list, since forwarded to committee chairman Fred Thompson (R., Tenn.), reads like a "Who's Who" of the conservative movement, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Christian Coalition, and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.
In mid March, Senate Republicans agreed to open the door to this potential harassment of their allies after a high-stakes battle over the scope of Sen. Thompson's investigation. Thompson, the hulking 54-year-old former actor who looks the part of a President and wants to play one in real life, laid the predicate for this in February by acceding to the demands of Democrats for an investigation broad enough to include a hunt for GOP wrongdoing.
This set off alarm bells among his Republican colleagues, who fear he will keep stoking his amazing media hype by playing the bi-partisan reformer at their expense. So, privately, they discussed shutting Thompson down and, instead, hoping for an independent counsel.
Majority Leader Trent Lott avoided the fantastic spectacle of Republicans scrapping their own investigation with a deal passed through the Senate Rules Committee. Thompson would get his high-profile investigation, but his committee's mandate would be confined to "illegal" activities, ensuring that he would spend time investigating Al Gore, not Grover Norquist. The situation seemed saved — except that Lott didn't have his votes nailed down, including that of Fred Thompson.
From the start, Senate leadership aides have bristled at what they characterize as Thompson's arrogance and "free-lancing." They complain that he didn't consult the leadership when he first ran into trouble with Democrats on his committee and wasn't forthright about the depth of his opposition to the Lott-brokered compromise. It's unclear to what extent Thompson and his ally John McCain (R., Ariz.) worked against the Lott language among their colleagues, but leadership aides fume over the pair's efforts to spike the deal.
The question came to a head at the weekly Tuesday Republican policy committee lunch in the Capitol. McCain first spoke up for broadening Thompson's inquiry to include "illegal and improper" activities. An angry discussion ensued in which it became increasingly clear that an eclectic collection of senators would hand Thompson a key victory. The usual weak sisters, like Arlen Specter (Pa.), wanted a broader inquiry. But so did others.
Republicans who serve on Thompson's committee, like Susan Collins (Me.) and freshman Sam Brownback (Kan.), had voted in favor of Thompson's original broad language in committee and felt they couldn't reverse themselves, especially with Thompson characterizing such a move as a hypocritical flip-flop. The opposition of the conservative Brownback in particular signaled the end for the Lott deal.
Thompson says he will devote the first phase of his investigation to Democratic wrongdoing anyway, but many Republicans won't believe it until they see it. One longtime Senate aide warns that the Democrats are "too smart, too clever, too everything for Thompson." They've certainly enjoyed manhandling him so far. At a Rules Committee hearing a few weeks ago, Democrats signaled they wouldn't question Thompson about Asiagate when he testified — then piled into the room to berate him over the investigation.
Thompson can expect more of the same. Thompson has said he hopes the Clinton scandals will produce the equivalent of a Watergate-era Howard Baker, a senator willing to turn on his own party. But Democrats typically don't behave that way. Indeed, the only party-defying "Howard Baker" to emerge from the scandals may yet prove to be Fred Thompson himself.
You might not know posters in real life but several of us do and you're kidding yourself if you don't think enemies are made online.
I've already written that Thompson's entry can save this forum from imploding. You're dead wrong about the "liberal" posters being the problem. It's always been the purists and the third party advocates --- people who put their pet issues before the good of the country. Their ever changing pet issues. I count you as one of them. You can't see the danger in a democrat CIC, particularly if it's Hillary or Obama. If Guiliani wins the nomination, he gets my vote. Our troops do not deserve a democrat CIC.
I will post to you this one instance.
In case you failed to notice, Rudy opponents have been standing up for Fred against the unprincipled attacks against Fred made largely by the Rudy camp. Fred is on balance strongly conservartive and merits such a defense on a conservative website. Most Duncan Hunter supporters would have no problem switching backing to Fred if he enters and Hunter fails to gain traction.
And beyond that, it ain't your call who is welcome on Fred threads, quite frankly, as long as they adhere to the posting guidelines. If Rudy supporters are in good standing on FR, they in turn have every right to come in and make factually-based opinions against Fred. And others have every right to call them on any hypocrisy, such as getting after Fred for supporting CFR when Rudy also supported it.
I'm not subscribing to the "victory through defeat" approach that many freepers seem to want to accept.
you win first, then as part of a winning coalition - you have influence to fight for the positions you want to see implemented. if you lose, you get nothing.
Thompson is mouthing the things I too largely believe, and I don't disagree that he is sincere.
But he has given us reason to believe that he doesn't have sufficient leadership and strength of will to translate his beliefs into action — in other words, I consider him to be a squish.
Presidents don't really have all that much influence over social issues.
I am willing to sacrifice a little bit of social conservatism in exchange for a tempered-steel spine.
The war between the the West and the Muslim crazies is THE crucial issue of our times.
It is imperative that the next president be rock-solid in the face of Islamic subversion and warmongering.
Guiliani gives me confidence: Thompson gives me the yips.
Seems to me the Rudy supporters are supporting him because they are against Hillary. I simply can not vote based on voting against Hillary. I want to vote FOR something, which is why if Thompson runs, I will vote for him.
Rudy will fracture the Republican party beyond repair, and make it that much more of a centrist/populist/liberal party rather than one based in conservatism. I want no part of that. You are fooling yourself if you think electing Rudy will save the Republican party. You do not advance conservatism by becoming more liberal.
Cut me a break. Many of the Rudy boosters have been bashing Fred incessantly since he insinuated he might enter the race. The so-called "purists" have been defending Fred. So we are NOT purists - we just want someone who is on balance a conservative. Which Rudy is not - and the Rudy booster attacks on Fred show what they are made of - and it ain't conservatism.
where do you see Rudy supporters making "unprincipled attacks against Fred"?
I'm asking one question - what are Thompson's chances of winning the general? how is that an "unprincipled attack"?
if Hillary wins in 2008 - you may not even have a constitutional republic left to "advance conservatism" in anymore.
A steel tempered-spine, perhaps. A mind ruled by fact and reason and constrained by federalisim? Not that I can see. His views on guns - that more guns equals more crime and less guns equals less crime - shows he is unwilling to face inconvenient facts and change his views. His bullheadedness in keeping the ECC in the WTC shows he will not listen to experts. And his pushing Bernie Kerik for the most important anti-terror job in the country shows he is more concerned about the well-being of his cronies than the security of this country - Kerik was smoked out within a week by the media and is under a legal cloud to this day.
A steel spine means nothing when it is not standing for the right things.
Get off your high horse before you fall.
Don't even try to lecture me on FR rules or what's allowed in debates. You know exactly what I addressed. Sure, hateful, vicious posters can come to Fred threads and they can post their hate against other candidates, but I will take them on and maybe even complain.
If Fred is nastily attacked, I'll defend him, but other than those kind of posts, Fred threads will try to stay focused on securing his win.
My fave is them getting after Fred for supporting CFR to try and disqualify him - when Rudy also supported it. That, quite frankly, is unprincipled.
What it takes to become president is to win the election. He's demonstrated the ability to win elections... by wide margins. Plus, I think he was Howard Baker's campaign manager for one election.
Seems to me he's knowledgeable about what it takes to make it happen.
Or when you said "willing to do what it takes" did you mean changing his views to try to convince people he's something he's not? If that's what it would take (which a lot of the candidates seem to think), you might be right. I'm not seeing signs of pandering anywhere in his history.
I'll take my chances and be true to my beliefs- and I will not vote for someone to simply vote against someone else. The fact that so many Republicans are so willingly throwing their support to Rudy, quite frankly, scares me. And there's a good chance she won't get the nomination.
Way too early to call anyone yet. My favorite is Hunter, and there is still time to see if he gets off to a start.
He won't get any help from the MSM, though.
I ain't the one trying to dic what should be allowed on Fred threads. If someone posts false or slanderous allegations against a candidate, that should be nuked. Otherwise, this is debate season and the candidates will face this scrutiny at some point.
Don't even try to lecture me on FR rules or what's allowed in debates. You know exactly what I addressed. Sure, hateful, vicious posters can come to Fred threads and they can post their hate against other candidates, but I will take them on and maybe even complain.
You're the one who blamed the "purists" - your own term. Last I checked, those horrible purists that you like to bash are the ones supporting Fred's entry - and the Rudy boosters have been doing the manure spreading. Seems to me you should turn your ire on the folks to your left, not your right. A strange concept on a conservative website /sarcasm.
If Fred is nastily attacked, I'll defend him, but other than those kind of posts, Fred threads will try to stay focused on securing his win.
There you go again. You are dictating what can be posted on a Fred thread after denying you were not.
I find that to be pretty sad, actually. There are few things online more bothersome than when someone mistakes an intense debate for personal disdain. I can get intense at times, and the few times people mistaked me for being a jerk, I felt legitimately bad.
You're dead wrong about the "liberal" posters being the problem. It's always been the purists and the third party advocates
Again, look at the Thompson posts from the last week. There is NOT ONE "purist" trashing him. The people that are trashing him are the Rudy fans. As I mentioned earlier, I'd be more than happy to go toe-to-toe with ANYONE bashing Fred at this point, but I have not seen anyone from any camp other than Rudy's doing this.
people who put their pet issues before the good of the country. Their ever changing pet issues. I count you as one of them.
I never change my pet issues. My core issues have always been maximizing personal liberty with an emphasis on the 2nd Amendment. Does that make me at least a little better in your book? :-)
If all goes right, this whole discussion will be a moot point in a few weeks. Once Fred gets in, I look forward to working along side of you. I haven't dealt with you much over the years here, but I do remember our exchanges being pleasant and going away from them thinking that you're a pretty cool chick.
his position on CFR doesn't really bother me. and as things develop, you'll see that while he talks tough on border security, he's not going to rule out guest worker status and a path to legalization for those that are already in the US. In other words, he's not going to be for forced deportation. again, I have no problem with that.
if Thompson is the nominee, the base has to allow him to tack to the center on some issues. If they don't, the media is going to be able to cast Thompson as "an actor who dabbled in politics, who now wants to run for president by embracing the religious right and hardcore conservatives to take down 'americas mayor'".
If they succeed at defining him that way, the independents will drift away and its over for Thompson in the general.
Chances are that Thompson can't win the nomination.
He's polling 6% in Ohio.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1029
If you check out my freeper profile page, I explain this a bit more in depth.
I welcome Fred into the race. Suck the wind right out of Rudy and McCain and Romniac. I will support Hunter, however, since he hasn't had to change his positions on squat. A Reagan guy since 1980, when he entered with the Gipper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.