Posted on 11/14/2007 4:30:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Responding to the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson, Paul Weyrich suggested that Thompson's backers greased some palms.
"I think in all probability the Thompson people were engaged with the National Right to Life people in financial dealing," Weyrich told the Washington Times.
That's a pretty tough charge and almost certainly not what Romney's campaign wanted their big social conservative "get" to suggest (at least not publicly).
Sensing opportunity to win more points from their own big "get" (the group's nod) Thompson communications director Todd Harris unloaded:
"Gov. Romney is new to the pro-life movement and his campaign clearly has a few things to learn about it. First, they should understand that despite their campaign's every effort, groups like the National Right to Life Committee's PAC (NLRC-PAC) cannot be bought. NLRC-PAC is supporting Fred Thompson because of Fred's 100% pro-life voting record. They know he stood with them yesterday, he stands with them today, and he will stand with them tomorrow. It is unseemly for the Romney campaign and its supporters to suggest that NLRC-PAC's coveted endorsement is based on a bribe. Second, this unfounded accusation is as outrageou s as it is ironic, given the Romney campaign's long history of spreading money around to anyone who will take it.
"If the Romney campaign is looking for the reason they did not receive the NLRC-PAC endorsement, they can start with the fact that Gov. Romney was pro-choice just two years ago. They should also consider the fact that Gov. Romney's own health care plan in Massachusetts offers taxpayer funded abortions for a mere $50 co-pay and requires by law that a representative from Planned Parenthood sit on the MassHealth advisory board. Tellingly, Gov. Romney made no such requirement for a representative from the pro-life movement.
"The Romney campaign was clearly hoping for this endorsement and are now clearly upset. But being denied an endorsement is no excuse to impugn the integrity of the very organization they were just days ago trying to woo."
Think he had fun with that one? Romney spokesman Kevin Madden responded by not disavowing Weyrich -- but also avoiding what he said.
"Governor Romney is thankful for the support he has received from pro-life advocates, he respects those that have offered their support for other candidates, and he will continue to work with ALL of the grassroots activists involved in the pro-life movement throughout this campaign," Madden told Jennifer Rubin.
I feel your pain, and I am here for you. After you've let him go -- grieved and found closure -- gotten over your shame and embarrassment -- you'll feel better.
Until then, you are welcome to kick me -- the messenger -- if it makes you feel better.
Inhaling deeply already this morning I see. The poster’s recollections matched mine and I affirmed them.
Guess it’s you who’s wittle feewings are hurt. And you tell a few little white ones along the way. No big deal, right?
Except people do remember and you’ve been exposed as a fraud. But keep on inhaling.....deeply.
And I’ll keep on pointing out your lies and inconsistencies.....and supporting Fred Thompson, President.
How about the one I replied to, where you speak of 'we, the disappointed'.
Or how about this little ditty with just a bit of martyrdom thrown in for good measure:
I don't even bother much anymore to claim that I was hopeful about Fred early-on, but I was.
If you feel the need to continue, don't worry, I'll be there to call you out every time you attempt to deceive.
The fact is that you have been a nasty, below-the-belt, crap-thrower since before Thompson even got into the race.
Now, you feign an appearance of being 'reasonable', but you're just another Romney shill and always have been.
You better start justifying ~your~ posting history.
Had I? I think not. MY posting history is consistent. You may not like what I say about ole Slick Willard, but I have never pretended to be anything but what I am: A Fred Thompson supporter who has a large amount of disdain for phony conservatives like Mitt Romney. Can't say the same for you.
Now, you're also pretending that you've only recently decided to support Romney. As I'm sure others remember, you've been a Romney butt-boy since way back, so cut out the act. Nobody's buying it.
Busting a deceptive MittWit ping.
If distorting the comments of others -- I am still waiting for you to point to where I claimed to have been "excited" by Fred...your initial claim -- helps you in your bitter disappointment...go for it. But your vulgarity does noting to redeem your slanders.
And I’m still waiting for you to post a post where you were the least bit supportive of Fred. Now that you’re so disappointed and sad that he didn’t live up to your expectations for him. You know, since you don’t bother saying that you were for him before anymore even though you were...
You got caught, little man. Own up to it and cut the crap.
Let's see...I believe you posted to the forum's owner whining for him to come help you out after making a big, distorted deal accusing me of having ever claimed "excitement" over Fred.
What are you going to do now...just keep having a tantrum and waiting for the big guy or the other pinged Fredheads to come and bail you out?
A tantrum? The only one I see getting upset here is you. You were the one that was deceptive. I merely called you out on it.
You’re beginning to squeal like your candidate did when he was unsuccessful in fooling the NRLC into endorsing him.
Let's see...who is calling "butt boy," pinging the forum owner, pinging for Fredhead reinforcements, etc.?
I am done with you...no pleasure in trying to carry on a contest of wits with an unarmed goose. Ciao, perfect_rovian_storm.
Hubby and I saw a great commercial here last evening for FDT, that ended with his name on the screen and under it, “President”. LOL it was great.
Speaking of Law and Order, I never heard of Duncan Hunter until the Duke Cunningham scandal broke.
I don’t need reinforcements to deal with a lowlife like you. I just wanted some of the others, who likely remember your behavior as well, to watch you squirm. Thank you for providing such a good show for them.
As for Jim, I pinged him, so he could be made aware of your deception. He usually is pretty up to speed on what’s going on around here, so it probably wasn’t necessary, but if you weren’t on the radar as a deceptive Mitt supporter, you sure are now.
Ciao bella, SergeiRachmaninov. I’ll catch ya again later. :)
Think about the lessons of the Democrat contest in 2004 and consider how those lessons apply to the Republican contest today.
Good early poll numbers are driven by media buzz and the hard core commitment of some passionate constituency. That’s why when Howard Dean came out of nowhere as champion of the anti-war nuts he seemed to dominate the polling with Wesley Clark looking like the principal alternative. The logical consensus choice for Democrats, John Kerry, nearly dropped off the radar screen. The pundits wrote him off and ridiculed him when he borrowed money from his wife to keep his campaign limping along.
But neither Dean nor Clark made any sense for Democrats. Dean was intemperate,shallow and much too anti-war to hold the Democrat coalition together. Clark was (and is) completely insane. He had a record of saying nice things about Ronald Reagan to boot. Whatever the polling said several weeks before Iowa, neither one was going to be the Democrat nominee.
When real voters got involved in the process, both Clark and Dean collapsed overnight. Clark chose not to compete in Iowa and by the time he got into the game Kerry had already won it. Dean finished a dismal third in Iowa and imploded.
With Dean and Clark out of the picture, Kerry’s only competition was John Edwards who, then as now, was lighter than air and obviously unfit to be President. Democrats shrugged their shoulders and reached the obvious conclusion that Kerry was their only realistic option.
And they were right. At the time I thought Kerry was every bit as much the anti-war kook as Dean without the virtue of Dean’s consistency. But Kerry’s veteran shtick worked to convince a large number of Americans that he could be trusted with national security, in spite of the Swift Boat Vets and his long career as an anti-American activist. Kerry nearly won, either Dean or Clark would have been obliterated.
The moral of the story is that primary voters faced with an open contest may give a commanding lead in early polls to candidates who make no sense. In the end, however, they will choose a candidate who is well-situated to make their party’s case in the general election.
This year the leading candidates who make no sense are Giuliani and Romney. If Huckabee rises a bit more he too can be a leading candidate who makes no sense. Neither Giuliani nor Romney has the background to lead a conservative party in a general election. They are both throwbacks to an earlier age when urban, liberal Republicans swung a big stick in the GOP. They no longer do. Romney compounds this problem by cross dressing as a conservative. Huckabee is a pious socialist, which makes him an even worse fit with the Republican Party than either Romney or Giuliani. Primary voters may date Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee for a time, but few of them will actually marry any of the above.
The example of 2004 strongly suggests that the candidates who make no sense will implode soon after the contest gets under way in earnest. When that happens, who will be left to play John Kerry’s role and pick up the pieces?
Fred Thompson.
He has positioned himself perfectly on the major issues. He has serious substantive proposals to discuss and he does so soberly and persuasively. He is a fierce counter-puncher (just ask Huckabee the pro-life liberal and Paul Weyrich/Mitt Romney). He has the right life story and the right resume for a conservative party. Some Republicans don’t like his style. Some quibble with this statement or that bit of history. In the end, however, most Republicans will probably shrug their shoulders and conclude that Thompson is their only realistic option.
That’s the lesson of 2004
I am really sad to hear that about Hugh Hewitt. I used to listen to him faithfully, but he has become such a Romney shill that I feel embarrassed for him.
I have stopped listening to him.
You know full well that if the NRLC had come out for Romney, he would be singing their praises.
"Le style c'est l'homme même."
You are obviously a liberal.
Nobody is right on everything. Is that all you got?
Fred is a better candiate than Rudy, but for a pro-life organization to endorse Fred, or ANY of the front runners, is just plain wrong.
‘MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
MR. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with.
That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days.’
This is what especially troubled me about what Fred said: “I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about.”
Should abortionists have the “freedom” to kill innocents?
....
“On another front, Parro criticized Thompson for saying last month that the government should not have intervened in the Terri Schiavo case in 2005. Schiavo was a Florida woman whose feeding tube was removed under her husband’s directives and despite her parents’ objections. Schiavo died on March 31, 2005.”
snip from http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200711/POL20071113c.html
Now let’s hear what the other candidates had to say about the Federal Govt. trying to save Terri:
Huckabee, on governmental intervention in the Terri Schiavo case:
“I had no problem with the state getting involved because it’s one of their citizens. but I wasn’t sure how the federal government had a role in all that.”’
http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2007/05/mike-huckabee-on-terri-schiavo.html
“MR. MATTHEWS: Okay.
Let me ask you a question which has grabbed a lot of Americans personally, the Terri Schaivo case. Again, it was a question of whether the United States — the U.S. Congress should have intervened and passed a law to advise the appellate court whether to act or not in this case, the district court it was. Terri Schaivo, should Congress have acted or let the family make the decision, the husband?
MR. ROMNEY: I think we should generally let the family make a decision of this nature. In the case —
MR. MATTHEWS: The husband should have decided?
MR. ROMNEY: Generally we should make that decision.
In the case here, the courts decided that — what they thought was the right thing to do, and then I think Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature did the right thing by saying we’ve got a concern. They looked over the shoulder of the court. But I think the decision of Congress to get involved was a mistake.
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ROMNEY: I think that Congress’s job is to make sure that laws are respecting the sanctity of life. But to actually adjudicate a case like this, better done at the state level by the governor, the legislature and the court.
MR. MATTHEWS: Senator Brownback, should Congress have gotten involved in that personal case?
SEN. BROWNBACK: Yes, it should have, and it gave her the right and the family the right to take that appeal to the court. That’s what the Congress did.
And her life is sacred. Even if it’s in that difficult moment that she’s in at that point in time, that life is sacred. And we should stand for life in all its circumstances.
MR. MATTHEWS: Senator McCain, was Congress right in intervening in that case?
SEN. MCCAIN: It was a very, very difficult issue. All of us were deeply moved by the pictures and the depiction of this terrible, tragic case. In retrospect, we should have taken some more time, looked at it more carefully, and probably reacted to hastily.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mayor Giuliani, was that a good thing for Congress to do, to get involved that weekend?
MR. GIULIANI: The family was in dispute. That’s what we have courts for. And the better place to decide that in a much more — I think in a much fairer and even in a deeper way is in front of a court.
snip
“MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. Congressman, Bill Clinton back home.
REP. HUNTER: You know, Bill Clinton cut the U.S. Army by almost 50 percent. In this war against terror, he’s the wrong guy to have in there.
==>And incidentally, on the Schiavo case, you know Ronald Reagan said on the question of life, when there’s a question, error on the side of life. I think Congress did the right thing.”
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5562636
You know, Duncan Hunter could have just ignored the question about Terri, because he wasn’t asked about it, but he proudly showed the country that he supported Congress decision to help Terri, even though he had to add it while answering an entirely different question.
Now THAT I like, because not all people supported Terri, either because of ignorance, or they are downright antilife, but Hunter didn’t care.
I seriously doubt that. Geez...what is it with you DH supporters, you call everyone that disagrees with you a liberal or some other equally vile name. It’s not my fault your candidate is so low in the polls that his name isn’t even listed.
You used liberal dishonest tactics.
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.