Posted on 10/15/2007 7:57:12 PM PDT by rmlew
(CNSNews.com) - On Tuesday, the day Fred Thompson made his debate debut in the 2008 presidential race, two conservative commentators criticized how the former Tennessee senator handled the 1990s Senate probe into Clinton campaign fundraising corruption.
Thompson was chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in 1997, when the committee probed Chinese money that allegedly poured into the 1996 re-election campaign of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.
"Had there been a legitimate investigation of Chinese money laundering, the results would have been very different from the results of Monica Lewinsky," said John Gizzi, political editor for Human Events, the conservative weekly newspaper.
Gizzi was contrasting Clinton's campaign finance scandal - which he deemed far more serious - with the sex and perjury scandal that led to Clinton's impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate in the late 1990s.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Sounds like Romney has a Dick Swett problem.
The two closet of any that deserve mention are Duncan and Fred.
Mitt ain’t even close. He has sold some people a bill of goods and it surprises me actually.
It’s very hard to claim the high moral ground with that collections of posts. I’d say the poster in question has.....issues.
courtesy ping
Most of my encounters with Petronski have been one with a very vile person.
Here's just one example:
Petronski spams the thread (post 141) and slanders Romney as 'American Liar'; uses the words 'shi*' and 'WAnkerville'; says to one poster 'Take your insults and shove them where you want them least.'; and gets called out by multiple posters for not paying attention to the FR disclaimer (see below)
from the FR home page:
Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.
So? Romney IS a liar and until we find out for sure whether or not he's a robot or an alien life form, we can safely assume that he's an American.
uses the words 'shi*' and 'WAnkerville';
If Petronski uses language you don't like, you're free to report it. I dare you to bother the mods because you're offended by 'WAnkerville'. They'll love that.
says to one poster 'Take your insults and shove them where you want them least.';
Could it be that one of you were insulting people again and Petronski told you where to shove your insults? Nah! Couldn't be. You Mittocrites are always clean and pure as the wind driven snow...
You people can pretend that you're some kind of victims, but everyone here knows the score. That includes the mods and any lurkers that might happen by. The sleazy insinuations and insults pushed by Mitt supporters have been so vile and disgusting as to warrant bannings and suspensions. Even on this thread.
So, while you're shoving those insults somewhere, how about working in this whole victim routine while your at it, hmm?
issues...
I like it...
You just saved me a lot of typing on a tiny keyboard...
DITTO
Thanks pal...
It was one of Fred Thompson's RARE opportunities to demonstrate his leadership and he failed big time. I remember the whole Chinagate investigation fiasco as we were tracking it closely on Free Republic. Thompson was a huge disappointment after our initial excitement from Thompson's opening statements at the committee hearings.
You're changing the subject, but no, Romney wasn't lying.
First of all, you're guilty of selection quotation. The transcript of the interview shows what Romney's intent was. He does not think Reagan was some kind of ardent leftist.
The full answer:
M. ROMNEY: Yes. Yeah, that's right. And then when I became governor — I don't know what's so unusual about this, but when I became governor and when legislation was brought to my desk that dealt with life, and I sat down and I said, "Am I going to sign this? Because I personally oppose abortion. Am I going to sign this?"
And I brought in theologians. I brought in scientists, took it apart — this related to embryonic cloning. And I said, "I simply have to come down on the side of life," and wrote an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe and said, "Look, here is why I am pro-life."
And I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I'm following in some pretty good footsteps.
It's exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life.
And the same thing happened with Henry Hyde and George Herbert Walker Bush. And so if there's some people who can't get over the fact that I've become pro-life, that's fine.
But I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I am pro-life and that I was wrong before, in my view, and that I've taken the right course.
'As governor means' 'in the capacity of governor', not personally. Reagan is responsible for bills he signs in office as governor - both their intentions and their results.
Note that an abortion bill also arrived on Reagan's desk (as it did Romney's...and Reagan was also advised by a 'theologian'. Yet, Reagan made a choice against the advice of Cardinal Francis McIntyre.
It was a poor choice of words, of course, but the larger point is absolutely true, even if the smaller point is only arguably true.
So you can follow on your Michael Moore political hack route, and judge a man by a selectively cropped quote, or judge him from a full body of experience, or at least the full quote.
The photos posted here by the heavy breathers and the 'trophy wife' insinuations that Jeri was a nothing until marriage to a successful man gave her gravitas are demeaning......and the liberal media revives this myth at every opportunity.
Extending further the misogynic photos and allusions regarding Jeri Thompson on this thread, I suppose freeper women of various accomplishments are just nothing-balls till they date or marry successful men and are then made "whole" and considered successful themselves.
Leni
I looked up the specific post you referred to. It called Mitt an American liar because he said Reagan was adamantly pro-choice. I respond to your post about a post and I am changing the subject? You are spinning so much you can't keep your facts straight.
All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy.
So? Romney IS a liar and until we find out for sure whether or not he's a robot or an alien life form, we can safely assume that he's an American.
Spamming is spamming. It was completely off-topic. It was spam.
If Petronski uses language you don't like, you're free to report it.
I have and I will.
There's no victim status. All I do is call out vile posters, especially when they attack Romney or other good men like Gingrich & Paul.
Everyone knows the truth about this election, but they just won’t admit it.
There are NO Reagan conservatives running in the GOP. All of the “conservatives” are simply less liberal than Hillary Clinton.
If I were to rank the conservatives by their adherence to conservative ideals, they would rank something like this:
1. Duncan Hunter (most conservative, but no one knows him)
2. Fred Thompson (Somewhat conservative, with good name recognition)
HUGE GAP
3. John McCain (RINO - Has become “Senatefied”)
4. Mitt Romney (RINO - Elected governor of Mass. Enough said)
5. Rudolph Giuliani (RINO - Is roughly a middle of the road Democrat)
The Democrats are attacking Thompson because he is the most viable CONSERVATIVE guy running. They don’t care if McCAin or Romney or Giuliani is running, because they know that those 3 will move even closer to Hillary’s positions as the race moves forward. Once they do that, she will just say “Go ahead vote for what these guys are moving towards, Me.”
We have a SICKNESS in this country called socialism. ALL of the candidates except Thompson and Hunter are moving towards it. These 2 are barely treading water, nearly inundated with the rush by the lemmings to get “free” medical care and to tax the “rich”.
Thompson and Hunter are not stellar candidates, but they are better than anything else the GOP is offering.
I'm sorry that things are moving so fast around you that you thinking I'm spinning.
The subject was how vile Petronski is as a poster, and my post provided evidence of that (spamming, foul language, and personal attacks by Petronski). If you want to argue the substance of one of dozens of posts, I might, but that's changing the subject.
You seem to be projecting your inability to keep facts straight onto me. Even as a Mitt supporter can't you admit that Mitt the weatherman is funny?
With what you consider 'vile', I'll wear that as a badge of honor.
All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy.
No, all you are doing is trying to create a moral equivalence between disgusting insults about a man's appearance, health, wife, or children and criticizing a lying politician. It won't work no matter how hard you try.
There's no victim status.
Damn right there isn't, so stop attempting to claim it.
Anytime :)
Whether it was Slick willie or Slick willard, the clintonian reference here is very clear. While if you think Mitt’s presentation is slick, i guess it is better than the laziness Thompson is projecting.
I have spent a fair bit in these threads and i can say clearly that Fred supporters have been heavily involved in these trashing of candidates like Mitt, it seems they have taken over from Hunter supporters.
‘I haven’t seen Fred voters spamming Romney threads, but have seen exactly the opposite on many Fred threads. And it WAS mainly Romney supporters who pushed the negativity about Jeri when that picture of her in the evening gown was first published.’
I have to disagree, it is Fred voters who mainly trash other Candidates on their threads and still do. I have indulged in debates with them when they used to post on such threads and i then realised it was waste of effort.
‘Regardless, we should be voting on the CANDIDATES’ records, not what their wives might be wearing on the campaign trail, ‘
Fair enough but like it or not, Presidential Candidates wifes do attract attention eg Theresa Heinz and thats the way it is. So Fred’s wife is going to draw some scrutiny even though it is not a productive tactic.
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.