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.
I agree, I think that all of the liberal leaning Republicans who support Rudy or McCain, are afraid that yet
again, their guy will go down in flames. Why does there seem to be so many wigged out Republicans and they go off half cocked? The Dem's always seem to stick together. It makes me so angry that the Republicans do this.
I think the supporters of all the others are worried, but my gosh, that's why we have primaries! GOP voters decide.
What a novel idea, huh?
I think Thompson is as frustrated as we are, and that is why I believe he will hop on the train.
Rudyphiles questioning Fred's conservatism is just hysterical.
Bring on the popcorn.
Rudy is solidly left of center, McCain is utterly unreliable and untrustworthy, Romney can't get elected (undecideds won't go for his name or his faith, and he leans left too often), Hunter won't bring in any EV's from CA and has zero name recognition (but is a solid Veep choice), Tancredo has marginalized himself with his solid stances (think Ron Paul... love 'em both, but they've got zero chance nationally), Newt's name has been pre-smeared far too much for undecideds (plus his name isn't "presidential" anyway)...
Who does that leave, Tommy Thompson? Brownback? Huckabee? Pataki? Hagel? Nothing inspiring in that group. I liked George Allen, but then he lost in VA...
Unless Condi Rice, Mike Pence, or Fred Thompson make a run, or someone else surprises me, I won't be in any danger of making my first "big" campaign contribution. (Big for me, anyway.)
>Unfortunately, when it comes to backing candidates, all too many Freepers seem to prize a gift of gab much more than they do proven competence.
>As evidence of this I offer up Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich and Alan Keyes.<
I'll buy the first carrot, but the second deserves some serious consternation. Fred Thompson has the height, the Suthun accent charm, and the acting ability going for him. His close aliance with John McCain makes me more than a little nervous. Newt doesn't have a chance of drawing the women's vote because of his infidelities and disloyalty to a dying wife. I would dearly love to see Alan Keyes get a
high office. His passion is admirable, but his record of defeats may be insurmountable. Before ANYone makes a definite decision on who to back from the growing field of candidates, you should log onto Duncan Hunter '08. You will find a myriad of important information about this man. You owe it to yourselves and to your country to nominate the very best man for the job, and in order to do that you must be fully informed on each one of them.
No.
Do you honestly think Rudy Guiliani haters and serial SPAMMERS will be welcomed on Fred Thompson threads?
Well, I don't spam, and I try not to hate anybody, but I have bashed the heck out of Rudy every chance I've gotten and I think Fred is terrific. Am I not welcome to contribute to Thompson threads?
How about the Mitt haters and SPAMMERS?
Same with him. I don't hate the dude, but I think he's a crappy governor and I really don't agree with him on much at all.
Several of us who hope Fred runs, have had our fill of the 24/7 shredding of every candidate and we're looking for a candidate we can be almost completely positive about.
That's why Thompson is such a good choice. Look at the diverse range of freepers supporting him. The ONLY people bashing him are Giuliani people who fear him. I have yet to see one Hunter/McCain/Paul/Romney/Tancredo fan say anything bad about him.
Strictly on issues alone and nothing else, who do you agree with more, Thompson or Giuliani?
If this is all you've got on Thompson, then ya ain't got much. He's got more appeal than Rudy and certainly more than McCain. Thompson is smarter than to run stalker for McCain, especially knowing how McCain has virtually no support with the Republican party.
Compared to who? Rudy? If so, you can not be serious.
I've read many of your posts about Thompson's possible candidacy and realize you have little or no respect for him as a potential president.
In the last few days and weeks he has expressed several opinions in direct disagreement with McCain...and yet you continue to float the theory that he's basically in bed with the McCain campaign.
I'd encourage you to listen to the audios available at NRO of each of his pieces- it might give you a more balanced perspective.
To what end? What has it gotten you, except a lot of enemies and some likeminded cohorts. The flame wars have evolved to the point where posters who hate other posters are bashing and vowing to never vote for this one or that one --- even smugly posting they rather see Hillary win than to vote for this one or that one.
Who needs the hateful, vicious posters?
Debate is one thing, but this forum has almost entitrely been devoid of that.
Oh I agree. The irony is rich.
more appeal to the socon base then Rudy. but not more appeal to independents.
So you sell the soul of the Republican party to gain independents? Not buying it at all.
I don't like to think of online people I've never met in real-life as "enemies". That's silly. We're all human beings in front of computer monitors. I'll viciously debate with someone and attack the logic and intelligence of their arguments, sometimes in an overly sarcastic and condescending way, but I try not to attack actual posters.
The flame wars have evolved to the point where posters who hate other posters are bashing and vowing to never vote for this one or that one
Frankly, I won't vote for Giuliani if he's the nominee due to his sick views on liberty, the 2nd Amendment and abortion. It has nothing to do with arguments I've been in on FR.
Debate is one thing, but this forum has almost entitrely been devoid of that.
That's why Thmopson needs to jump in sooner than later. FR, with the exception of a few liberal posters, will unite around him, and it will be like the FR of the past. Take my word.
April 7, 1997
Yes, I remember these hearings. It reminded me of some fool doing repetative circumcision surgery on the same patient, er I mean victim. Round and round and round, deeper and deeper and deeper until you have nothing left to hold on to.
The media had a blast, Fred got a lot of attention and nothing was accomplished.
Are people hoping for a Reagan reincarnation? I did like Ronnie's handling of the Federal air traffic controllers' strike and the troop invasion on Grenada in '83 to free the American hostages.
But then I also recall that Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor.
Who knows what's going to happen. Let's see if he is gonna run. If he does then I'll make a decision. Until then this is wasted energy.
those independents provide the margin of victory in the statewide races that matter. toss them to the side, Hillary wins.
I have no problem with Thompson. But my top 3 issues for 2008 are electability, electability, and electability. The party stands for nothing if it allows the Clintons to march back into the white house.
this headlong rush to draft Thompson - no one is even asking the question - can he win the general? I myself find it hard to see how he does as well as Bush did in 2000/2004. What Kerry states does Thompson flip?
Then why waste time discussing candidates or their positions? Just read the polls and go with the favorite. BTW, why with an attitude like that, would you waste everyones time by posting on FR?
Very good point.
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.