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.
He's not a candidate yet. That's actually a pretty good number considering.
If a liberal is elected president, whether Republican or Democrat, I have lost. The only way I have to "fight for the positions I want to see implemented" is by getting a person who agrees with those positions elected.
You obviously feel differently and you can see "victory" in a liberal president who will work against most of your positions, as long as the liberal has an "R" after their name.
This is the thrust of the pro-Rudy posters, I can except this. What I don't understand is why you are on FR. FR is a conservative forum, not a Republican forum. The ridiculous logical gymnastics that Rudy supporters use to try and convince FReepers that Rudy is really not a liberal are not only disingenuous but are tiring. Give it up. Spend your time campaigning for the liberal of your choice. Post on a liberal forum. Leave us conservatives to discuss how we will get a conservative into office.
I hate to tell you this, but the media will do that no matter who is running or how far left they run.
Fred will be able to run from a pro-life, pro-gun and pro-conservative stance. He has far more charisma than anyone else in the race on either side. He can finesse a few moves to center - but he will be able to draw the Reagan Dems back to the GOP ledger by what he is now, not what he may say later.
Allow me to amend this sentence too. The people that are trashing him are a small-minority of Rudy fans.
it's early.
But the point to be made there is - if he plans on getting in. GET IN NOW. This idea that he can wait it out, I understand his play there to let Rudy be bloodied before he enters. But with respect to the general election - Thompson needs as much exposure as he can get. Sure, he's on TV and radio. But people have to start thinking about him as a politician with the experience to be President, and it takes alot of time and money to develop an image and persona, especially when the entire weight of the media is against you.
no you haven't. If Rudy were elected, and Ted Olson is sitting there banging away selecting federal judges - we're fine.
Can you please point me to some threads where Thompson is getting attacked from the right? I genuinely want to go to them and defend him.
Considering who the so-called Republicans were that were in the Senate at the time, can this really be a bad thing?
Hopefully he'll do a better job of selecting judges than he does selecting clients.
You forgot to ping Jim to tattle on me. I'm telling you, you are one of the worst tattle tales and trouble makers here. I'll never forget that you were the first one out of the box to jump on the "Bush is a cokehead" band wagon.
So having just said how the Rudy boosters are trying to sandbag Fred, you claim they are NOT spreading the hate and discontent, because they are so bad at it? Sheez....some of these same folks were the ones spreading outright lies and misconceptions about Hunter, who is a damn good man whether or not you think he can win.
What makes you think they won't do the same to Fred? If anything, the Rudy camp is consistent with their depravity. They will find molehills and make mountains of them. And create new molehills if actual ones are in short supply.
It's the same ole third party advocates and unappeasable purists. The folks that despise Mitt too, and some even think Hunter isn't good enough on the issues.
Those folks are a small minority. Most, however, see Rudy's potential nomination as a train wreck waiting to happen - on many levels. And their concerns are well-justified. And most would find common ground with Fred that they simply would be unable to find with someone as far left as Rudy.
I'll grant the Guliani supporters another thing --- scant few of them are threatening to stay home if someone else wins the nomination.
Nah, they'll just try and hamstring the one guy who could probably pull the entire party together and who also has enough charisma and name recognition to carry over otherwise indifferent voters - all to push a guy who is at the far left of the party and who would probably split the GOP in half if nominated. So tell me - who is doing more damage to the party?
I can but I won't. You don't seem to have any trouble finding your own fights.
For Chrissakes, would you both please chill out? You're both decent people and you both support Fred Thompson. If this childish, inter-nicene FR crap is not at least temporarily kiboshed, it's going to hurt his campaign. I'm not asking you guys to date or anything, just voluntarily don't post to each other on threads you agree on. It's not hard.
Do you really think were that gullible? Rudy had a long history of appointing, almost exclusively, liberal Democrats as judges. Rudy's interpretation of the Constitution is contrary to what I, and any conservative justice, believes. Tigers don't change their stripes. Conservatives will govern as conservatives and liberals will govern as liberals. Rudy is a liberal and that's how he would govern.
NO THANKS!
Oh, grow a thicker skin. And get yourself past the point of making enemies online. This is full-contact season.
Well, since you ask again, I'll give you the same answer as I did last night:
I could see MN 51-48, WI 50-49, MI 51-48, or PA 51-49 all being potential pickups. Thompson would go over well, I think.
On the other hand, throw a New York liberal on our ticket and I'd see several red states turning blue.
You're allocating much too much power to this forum. Nobody here can make or break a candidate and neither can the whole of FR.
FR can go anti-GOP and/or Third Party if Guiliani wins the nomination, but it'll see a drastic and perhaps temporary drop in membership. We're already seeing a drop.
Scroll down to the chart --- the spike in February? That's Anna Nicole and that thread went over 25,000 posts and the new one is almost at 10,000.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com
Thank you for interjecting a good post.
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.