Posted on 07/13/2007 7:48:24 AM PDT by pissant
No. This is a flat-out lie. Read Fred’s piece. We discussed it up and down here yesterday.
I read Fred’s piece. It certainly had no denials in it. You can contrue it one of two ways -
As a preemptive strike to tell us he will not be responding to future “dirt” regarding his clients.
Or a backdown from the denial.
I'd always thought of FR as a place to pool ideas and help move the conservative agenda forward. Unfortunately, it’s now just a place where people challenge the conservatism of others and exchange metaphorical FU's.
Basically, I don't understand anymore how FR helps the overall conservative agenda or prevents the more liberal candidates from winning elections. The complete lack of any pragmatism is not a recipe for success.
So, what we have in this item you posted, is no new information. It’s just old information interpreted in a way that you like. The same as ever. Pfftt!
Fred is going to be our next president.
But it is coming to head rapidly with Ames being about 30 days out and we’ll probably see some drop outs afterward. Time is rapidly fading to get organizations with funding in place for the Jan. - Feb. onslaught of primaries. It looks somewhat like 2000, a few out front and a bunch hoping to be players. We’ll see and one interesting aspect will be whom will the drop outs cast their support to after they leave the campaign trail....
Interesting times a coming.......
You don’t remember the fights between the McCain and Bush camps on FR? Brutal. It’s always been brutal here. Much more interesting than a site that marches in lockstep with the RNC.
FR helps AFTER the primaries and its help to the conservative cause was on display a few weeks ago, when we helped flatline the amnesty bill.
In before the opus? /sarc
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
*Yawn*
I see. So far I’ve been criticized for bringing up “old” thompson quotes. Now I get grief for bringing up a new article on the hottest topic in the blogosphere regarding politics. I guess I’ll just post Fred press releases from now on.
The easiest and most generally used tactic when running against a lawyer is to trade off a general perception that most people dislike lawyers. Goodness knows that a lot of lawyers have earned disfavor but, as it turns out, folks understand our system better than a lot of politicians think they do. In my first run for the Senate, my opponent tried the old demagoguery route – “He has even represented criminals!” – to no avail.
A first cousin of this ploy is to associate the lawyer with the views of his client. Now-United States Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this notion during his confirmation hearings. “… [I]t’s a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.”
Roberts pointed out that Adams was actually vindicating the rule of law. Every person, unpopular or not, is entitled to representation. He further said, “That principle that you don’t identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is critical to the fair administration of justice.”
Like Adams, the views of attorney Abe Lincoln would have been a little hard to discern from looking at the positions he took as a lawyer. He represented the big railroad companies and on other occasions represented farmers and small land owners against the railroads.
Likewise during the Roberts confirmation, the New York Times reported on August 5, 2005 that as an appellate lawyer in the mid-1990s, Roberts gave advice to a gay-rights group that helped them win a 1996 anti-discrimination suit. Chief Justice Roberts had no direct hand in the suit. Rather, colleagues at his firm were handling the case and sought advice from a number of partners, him included. The group said that Chief Justice Roberts provided “invaluable strategic guidance” formulating legal theories.
I’ve experienced another gambit of those schooled in the creative uses of law and politics: dredging up clients – or another lawyer’s clients – that I may have represented or consulted with, and then using the media to get me into a public debate as to what I may have done for them or said to them 15 or 20 years ago. Even if my memory serves me correctly, it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments.
This situation does however bring to mind my many years in the law, and the nature of law practice in a country such as ours that prizes independence and individual rights. Of course, these values could not be protected without lawyer-client confidentiality or if lawyers were identified with the positions of their clients.
Yes. A good attempt at preemption.
Despite the worst efforts by you, the lib media and the Democrats, Fred’s still doing great among likely voters!
Rasmussen Friday the 13th:
Fred Thompson 25%
Rudy Giuliani 24%
John McCain 12%
Mitt Romney 12%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Sam Brownback 2%
Keep it up! I just donated another $100 to Friends of Fred, bringing my total so far to $250 since their website went up June 5th.
On my modest salary, I hadn’t planned to give so much so soon, but you guys bring out the campaign donor in me!
The inside buzz is that all of the slime heaped on Fred is actually helping his campaign by painting him as a symapathetic figure under attack from panicky rivals and the drive-by media.
Thanks for your part in all that, and thanks for persuding me to open my wallet for Fred Thompson!
His apathetic response reveals his heart.
A pro-life individual would be outraged at the suggestion that he or she may have aided abortion, particularly in their professional life for money.
The fact that his reaction is "I don't remember" says a lot. It means he holds out the possibility that he may have lobbied for abortion, and ultimately doesn't care.
I know that I can’t change your mind about Fred. The information is for other people to see for themselves.
Why is it that when someone disagrees with you on Fred Thompson (do you know why?) he must therefore be "rooting for Hillary"? How can you make that judgment?
Embarrasment. Maybe. Not a campaign killer. Thompson still wins GOP nomination. He and Huckabee will make a great team.
No problem. Enjoy
I think it will be a harder sell than the RATS and their media handmaidens realize. His lobbying career was a long time ago (have you noticed how McCrazy has been spared talk of his long-ago Keating Five scandal?). More important, normal people have far more respect for corporations than these idiots realize. They don't see it as a character flaw if you lobby for a big successful company; they're impressed that a big successful company thinks you're good enough to represent them.
The Swift Boat issues stuck to Kerry despite being very old because military sins are another story entirely.
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.