Thursday, July 12, 2007
"In the July 7 LAT story, Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo firmly rejected charges that Thompson had lobbied in support of the pro-choice group. 'Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,' he said
In response to a Huffington Post inquiry today [[July 11]] however, Corallo was more equivocal: 'He said he has no recollection of doing any work and does not recall lobbying anyone on it.'"
What's coming next? We can only guess, but my money is his "don't judge a lawyer by his clients" defense won't hold up - but I'm not stopping until we find out "What did the Thompson know, and when did he know it."
And here's the Thompson audio from his Hannity interview shared on the Huffington Post just for fun and so you can hear flip actually flopping:
Friday, July 6, 2007
June 16, some anonymous critic of Fred Thompson sets up "The Anti-Fred" at knoxpooley.blogspot.com. (Knox Pooley was the name of the white supremacist villain who FDT played on Wiseguy a long while back; I thought only Los Angeles Times writers were dumb enough to mix up fiction and non-fiction.)
Har. And I thought National Review writers were too smart to mix up snark as commentary. Oh well.
If the Fred Thompson campaign implodes under the weight of the new facts about his Watergate record, or even under the weight of some interesting but so far unsubstantiated charges, then Knox Pooley can just go back to being a work of fiction.
But I strongly resent the implication that I am some kind of dirty trick. This blog does have to be anonymous. I can't say who I am because I know I couldn't blog without getting in trouble. A lot of bloggers are like that. This does not mean we are sneaky or suspicious. In fact there is more truth in anonymity because we are not constrained by having to answer for the truths we tell.
Well, here is a truth: The Republicans cannot simply nominate another good ol' boy charmer in 2008 and expect to win. Especially one whose best credential is pretending to be people with actual credentials. Has the GOP become a regional party? Sometimes I wonder.
And I won't take back my comment in the first psot about the top tier being "Rudy McRomney" but the truth is I would prefer someone with the proven competency of Romney to the unproven incompetency of Fred! Thompson. But that's not an endorsement of Romney. I am not for a moment convinced he is a real conservative. But nor is Fred.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight -- asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.
Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.
"Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was."
Nixon! Richard "We Are All Keynsians Now" Nixon! The man wasn't even a conservative. Not hardly. Remember the guaranteed income? That was Nixon's too. (It took a Democrat, Pat Moynihan, to stop that)
I am sure there are many more stories like this out there. And this one just came from Thompson's own book. What else is there that will take a big more digging? The sooner the better, please.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
I turn you over to Eunomia, who points out that Fred! just might be the luckiest man alive, next to Lou Gehrig:
Fred Thompson got out while the getting was good, before the full onslaught of the Bush Era, and so memories of his time in the Senate are a little more blurry and bound to be suffused with warm, nostalgic feelings for the good old days when real conservatives supposedly roamed the halls of the Senate. This obviously makes no sense. The reality is that Frist more naturally fills the “conservative gap” in the GOP presidential field than does Fred, but was so badly compromised by his time running the Senate under Bush and the subsequent loss of the Senate in ‘06 that he ceased to be viable. Thompson, had he remained in the Senate, would be in the exact same position politically. It is only because he happened to separate himself from the Senate GOP before it went careening to its doom that anyone takes him at all seriously. In terms of substance, he is actually a less compelling figure for conservatives in terms of his policy views than Bill Frist.
Maybe Fred Thompson is something the right just has to work out of its system. Then again, it took 6+ years to work past the "Bush" stage. If conservatism is going to move forward it can't go back to this good ol' boy southerner never meanin' no harm. The Republican party will lose with a retread, and that's just what Fred Thompson is.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
This blog comes from an old-line conservative perspective, but our friends on the Left may also contribute meaningfully. This blog is not aligned with any other candidate, but our position is he is Rudy McRomney with an IMDB entry. Think about it.
Until the time becomes necessary to lead the charge, please see these links: