FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Posted on 09/21/2007 8:57:06 AM PDT by Fred
The onetime ultimate D.C insider, Dick Morris recently brandished the allegation that Fred Thompson is awkward in answering questions. What a hoot coming from the guy that Chris Matthews kicked off the air and out of the Hardball studio -- probably the only guy ever to receive such treatment from Matthews -- for defaming Catholicism. But aside from the pot calling the kettle black issue, Morris accidentally put his finger on the thing that middle Americans get about Thompson which beltway insiders don't: substance over image and the difference between the two.
Morris finds fault with Thompson because:
* He does not know enough about the details of the Terry Schiavo case to comment. * He is also unfamiliar with the proposal to lower soaring insurance premiums Floridians must pay for home storm coverage since the hurricanes. * He didn't know enough about drilling in the Everglades to comment.
I find it refreshing. Most politicians who do not know the specifics of a particular subject would merely answer with platitudes, misdirection, or broad generalizations. How often do we hear a politician say "I don't know"? I personally would much rather hear that said then a five minute dissertation of painfully obvious drivel. He could have answered the Shiavo question with something inane like "It's always an unfortunate tragedy when a young person suffers a debilitating disease or injury" if he did not know the specifics. That's the kind of response the politicos expect and that middle America balks at.
Do we expect our politicians to know everything or do we just expect them to pretend they do? Have the D.C. insiders become so desensitized to political BS (like what Morris wrote for Bill Clinton during his administration) that they no longer understand the difference between informed comment and obvious pandering for the great media sound bite; "I feel your pain" comes to mind.
Now that Morris has damned Thompson for a failure of omnipotence and a lack-of-enthusiasm for failing to try and bluff the public, what are his other grievances?
Staff turnover, lobbying influence, non-conservative positions, and because Thompson said that Iraqis were supporting us because of al Qaeda's ban on smoking.
It's easier to throw out baseless accusations which require no research than to review the facts and form an opinion. So I will not try to answer all these accusations. But let me discuss two of the most irritating lies in his column.
Morris loses credibility with his complaint about Thompson's al Qaeda comment. What Thompson referred to were the reports that al Qaeda in Iraq was killing and maiming Muslims they caught smoking. This heavy-handed treatment of Iraqi Sunnis along with other atrocities as noted by Thompson caused them to turn on al Qaeda. It brings great discredit on Morris's typically straight shooting analysis that he has parroted the liberal crank websites with this pabulum. Even the New York Daily News which broke the story of Thompson's comments didn't try to make it look like smoking was the only factor for which Thompson attributed the change in Iraq.
Most damaging is Morris's claim:
"As a lobbyist, he helped the attorney representing the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, to fight requests to extradite them to the U.K. to stand trial."
His misrepresentation of rather innocuous work reflects a hyperventilating New Republic article in which the magazine demonizes lawyer Thompson for logging a few hours assisting a senior partner by researching venue questions. Apparently TNR, the purveyor of the Scott Thomas lie, is now offended at the thought that an American could help the enemy. Pot, kettle, black.
TNR is perplexed that an international flight of an American carrier, carrying people from many nations, originating from Germany, blown up over Scotland, and attacked by Libyans would require a couple of hours to research jurisdictional issues. TNR implies that since jurisdiction was immediately obvious, who knows the nefarious goings on that Thompson spent the rest of that three hour billing on? Again, Morris really goes bottom feeding to legitimize such nonsense.
Even the New York Times which broke the story seemed subdued and provided rare, fair context about a conservative politician. As they rightly note, all criminal prosecutions require a defense or else they can't be tried and that Thompson was not a member of the defense team and was only consulted because of his specialized knowledge. That's a far cry from the misleading impression Morris and TNR gives of the matter.
Look, I happened to fly to Germany on my first military duty assignment a few days after that terrorist attack. I attended a memorial service in Wiesbaden for Sgt. Willis Larry Coursey who died on that plane. I still have the memorial service program stashed away. It was my first eye-opening personal experience with the brutality of terrorism. I don't take it lightly although I won't try to say I ‘feel the pain' of Sergeant Coursey's family as Dick might urge me to say. To equate a few hours researching jurisdiction to sympathy for those terrorists is the typical beltway nonsense that turns us in the heartland away from beltway insiders like Morris.
I haven't heard him say anything lately since he didn't go to the debate most important to me (Values Voters). I do feel slapped by that, but I haven't ever heard him stumble or parse his answers. He is way more articulate than Bush so I don't care about the stumbling. If, however, he starts to parse his answers then I won't be able to support him. I want a person who listens and learns and sometimes changes how he things conservative principles can best be accomplished. So I don't mind if he is still working out a plan here and there. What I don't want is a liar, a parser or a flip-flopper who will say anything to get elected (Romney).
“Look in the dictionary under the word “opportunist,” and you’ll see Morris’ picture.”
BINGO.
Morris is largely irrelevant, except for Clinton-bashing and maybe selling a book on it.
If Hillary! wins, Morris has 4 years of relevance and a gravy train. If Hillary! loses, he runs short of toe-sucking money.
I'm glad he's out there, but he's way off on Thompson.
Can you point me to that? I haven’t seen him answer it.
You mean his response to the Dobson comments? I read it in a news story yesterday. If I can find it I’ll post a link. He pretty much just brushed it off and then said something nice about how many of his friends think highly of Dobson.
Well that helps me make my mind up....Fred has my vote.
Yes, that’s what I meant...sorry, I should have been more clear.
I usually read everything about Fred that I can find...I don’t know why I haven’t found that yet.
I’ve tried to figure that fetish out and for the life of me I just can’t.
Nice bottom,
nice hooters,
nice legs or lips,
but let me suck on your toes so I can get off?
Now that’s seems just a lot strange.
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
One more reason why I do.
Hey, try this one, I really enjoying dressing like a woman and having Trump maul me?? What is with that???
I haven't found the response I was telling you about from Fred himself. I thought his response showed great character, lacked defensiveness and didn't show evidence of an inflated ego. Maybe that's a girl way of looking at things -- lol -- but I am a person who respects Dobson (not that I always agree with him on these sorts of things) and I appreciated Thompson's gracious response.
I got it a little wrong. He said basically "it's a free country," "so be it," and "some of Dobson's friends like me." Still, it was a pretty good response.
I disagree with Dick about Fred Thompson. But Chris Matthews is a blithering fool who hopes people will mistake his fast talking style for intelligence (of which he has very little).
So what if he kicked Dick Morris off the show for a subtle dig at the Catholic church. He still lets anti-American dolts and traitors like Murtha and the Breck Girl get prime time exposure to spout their pap.
Getting booted off his show should be a badge of honor in my opinion. Its also inconsequential, since nobody watches his stupid show anyway.
“He is way more articulate than Bush”
So is my first-grader!
Dickie is the resident expert on All Things Hillary. If she is not in the White House where does that leave Dickie?
That's because he (Dick) isn't a Republican, he's a Democratic Party reject.
I’ve been considering Fred for a few months now, and have recently decided to send him some money. The clincher, in the last few weeks, has been the nature of the attacks against him.
Thanks! :)
Guess he's not such an authority after all.
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.