Fred Thompson backs off lobbying denial

Politico ^ | 7/12/07 | Mike Allen

[pissant]

Now that is the kind of post that leads to good dialog. Thank you. I'll reply in kind.

When I saw that one of my all time favorite "hawks" was jumping into the race, I knew pretty quickly I would support him 100%. I also knew, and stated, that the odds were HEAVILY stacked against him, just as they are for the other 2nd tier guys struggling to get traction.

Without the press willing to cover his every speech, campaign stop, and proclamation like it was doing for the big three (Thompson makes it big 4 now), I, as a supporter and Hunter as a campaigner, needed to do more than just glad hand folks and appeal for money. He needed to and needs to spell out not only his qualifications, but to take the others to task for their past silliness.

Hence, in the 3rd debate, Hunter blistered Rudy McRomney and said they were from the Kennedy wing of the republican party, after listing their liberal policies. It does not get much harsher than that. LOL

In addition, here's what the Hunter campaign used to help them do real well in the SC straw poll:

And just for the record, all camapigns have their "hatchet guys" to dig up dirt and expose their rivals. And leaving the candidate himself the ability to deny that they are slinging mud. Even Fred has them.

So Fred is gonna have to run the gauntlet, both in the primary, and if he wins, the general. Team Romney is all over him, as expected. Hunter has to scratch and claw his way up to the place where the other campaigns will be gunning for him. If he does, as I expect, reach top tier status, he will be the subject not only of many negative articles in the MSM, but also posted here on FR. It comes with the territory.

And no, Fredheads have not just started jumping into Hunter threads. There are more "he'll never get anywhere" and he's "nothing but a lazy pork barrel spender" then I can shake a stick at. Starting last january and accelerating once it looked more likely that Fred was gonna run.

Is it annoying? Yes. Have I claimed abuse and told folks not to come on to Hunter threads? No. I've been around here long enough to know that Fred, Duncan, Paul, Mitt or anybody else is gonna get torpedoes incoming.

[pissant]

Rob21 did use some inflammatory rhetoric, but it was no harsher than the language used by many fredheads (and me and Jimrob) used to describe Mitt and Rudy. A timeout would have been sufficient in my view.

[pissant]

Yes, Laura was great. Hewitt, in my opinion, was only pushing hard (and he did) because his guy Romney came out against. He’s always been an open borders guy in the past. Medved at least stood his open borders ground and slapped around by his callers.

[Cicero]

I think I’ve read all the articles on this. The story was put forward in the LATimes by three screaming liberals with connections to hillary. The prime mover is the current president of the Brady Gun Grabbers. The LATimes backed down when questioned, and changed the story several times.

Even if what they say is true, which is very doubtful, not even these guys claim that Fred was actually lobbying for this pro-abortion outfit. What they claim is that he spoke to the lawyer who was doing the lobbying and gave him advice when the other lawyer asked him about it. But they have presented no convincing evidence that this actually took place.

Did Fred speak briefly with another lawyer, maybe at lunch or in the hallway? It’s not surprising if he says he doesn’t remember. Who on earth would remember? In any case, even if he did, this hardly constitutes a major problem. And no one has accused him of actually taking the lobbying job, presumably because there’s no evidence to support it. There wouldn’t be a paper trail for an informal chat about the case, but there would be a paper trail if he signed on, and therefore they didn’t try the more serious accusation, because they knew they’d be caught lying.

It’s not anything near as bad as Mitt Romney as governor signing an order legitimizing gay marriage in Massachusetts, when even the Mass Supreme Court recognized that they lacked the power to force him to do so, and therefore ordered the legislature to convene and legalize it—which they never did. So, why did Mitt jump in and legalize it, when he did not have to, and in fact had no constitutional excuse for doing so?

It was a similar situation when Romney leaned on Catholic charities to get involved with contraception and abortion. Did he have to do this? No. But he did.

[pissant]

His campaign knows exaclty what I’m doing. They read FR. As do Fred’s people, and Mitt’s. They all know what FR is. Playing the Fred the victim card here doesn’t wash with me.

[pissant]

60-40. Soon to be 50-50

[kevkrom]

60-40

Among registered FReepers, it's 63-37.

Soon to be 50-50

Why, are you going to flood the poll?

[kevkrom]

What denial?

Other than yours? Read #124, it lays out the situation perfectly, and makes your objections look silly.

[pissant]

No flooding. Just facts. You’ll be joining us soon enough. ;o)

[kevkrom]

No flooding. Just facts. You’ll be joining us soon enough. ;o)

Doubtful. I was a Keyes supporter. Twice. I know where this train ends up.

[what's up]

Fred used to be pro-choice but changed.

Isn't this why most Freepers railed against Harriet Miers?

I am backing no candidate, but see a lot of hypocrisy in the starry-eyed backing of Thompson when Miers traversed a similar course on abortion.

[pissant]

That’s the big fallacy. Keyes was utterly unqualified to be president, was a guy who stuck his foot in his mouth frequently, came across very odd in debates, even though what he said was usuually great, and had next to no political experience.

Hunter is the exact opposite. Hunter really is the best guy to be CIC.

[lolhelp]

Well I remember every job I ever had also, but I don’t remember every little thing I did or said and I am a youngster, just 70 years young, but then we live a long time in my family.

[pissant]

I’d say a healthy chunk of fredheads here will not even acknowledge that he was pro-choice, even though its indesputable.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

See Post 15.

[pissant]

You’re just too good for your own good. ;o)

[what's up]

I’d say a healthy chunk of fredheads here will not even acknowledge that he was pro-choice, even though its indesputable.

It's interesting to watch them twist when you bring it up.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

No, Pissant’s idiotic asshattery is entirely consistent. ;)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It's interesting to watch them twist when you bring it up.

So do you think that Fred plans on being pro-choice should he be elected?

That's the only relevant issue.

Everything else is just empty-headed hens clucking.

[BritExPatInFla]