1

"But those of us on the front lines of the campaign are putting our integrity on the line whenever we defend our (still unannounced) candidate."

This is true and I've always been leary about being "too political" on my blog, but I've posted my support of Fred as well.

We'll see what happens, but his voting record on abortion is solid, which speaks volumes ... as does/would present tense affirmation of his pro-life stance.

2

It's "gotcha" journalism, smear tactics, and much ado about nothing all rolled into one. Don't apologize. Mr. Thompson's Pro-Life record is clear and well established. -jw

3

Thank you Joe,
in an age where many claim that "their remarks where taken out of context" or apologies are issued which are basically non-apologies, I really appreciate someone who simply states, I was wrong, I apologize.
I believe that truely reflects the Biblical attitude we ae called upon to have. Being human and sinful and ignorant, we all will say from time to time, human, sinful, and ignorant things. I'm grateful that we serve a God of grace which is forgiving and we live in a community which understands that.

4

A breath of fresh, authentic air! There still are people in the world who value their integrity in the process more than the end result of getting there.

5

Great post, Joe.

6

I think a Guiliani-Thomspson ticket is our best chance in 08'. I'm still not sure that Thompson has the intestinal fortitude to take down Hillary. This campaingn is going to be the nastiest of recent memory and Hillary will stop at nothing to get back into the white house. Rudy is tough enough to not blink when this Stalin incarnate stares him down. I think Thompson is perfectly suited for the VP role. He can attack her - and he will chew her and spit her out - while Rudy plays the optimistic front runner. As far as Rudy's "liberl" social standings: he has made it clear these decisions are to be decided by popular will. That is the best we can hope for. We had Nixon, Reagan, and Ford and got Blackmun, O'conner, Souter and Kennedy!!!!!!!! When Rudy tells me he will nominate Roberts and Alito I believe him.

copiousdissent.blogspot.com

7

Well, I don't. I don't trust Giuliani any farther than I can throw him. And I don't see how electing him would be all that much better than electing Hillary. Thompson's got flaws, but I think he's the best we can hope for.

8

I appreciate your willingness to admit your error. I hope that a lesson is learned by all. Perhaps David Hume said it best: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."

I still don't get why you, who seem so preoccupied with the abortion issue, think that Thompson is your man. Other than voting "the right way" in his 1 1/3 terms in the Senate, what exactly has he done to vigorously advance the pro-life cause?

Let me go further and say that I don't get the support for Fred Thompson at all, except for the feeling that he can play the part of president convincingly. The man has little legislative experience (quick, name the significant legislation that he sponsored) and no executive experience. He is not really known for passionately supporting any issue in particular. His main work experience in life is as a lobbyist and actor. He divorced his wife, had numerous high profile girlfriends, then married a woman 24 years younger (7 years younger than his oldest child).

I've been waiting for you, Joe, to present some positive reasons for supporting him. Do you have any, besides his tall stature and good voice?

9

Great article. You display great integrity.

I wish that we had a candidate who had that kind of integrity. Thompson could have it; it's rather early to tell right now. (This situation doesn't mean that Thompson has no integrity, necessarily - it could mean that his memory is faulty or that this people are sloppy.)

But even if we don't find a candidate with great integrity, we still can (and should) back them if we believe that their positions are better than their opponent's positions. The lack of perfect candidates shouldn't keep us out of politics! We would just need to be careful not to compromise our own integrity in the process of backing them. Your statement here is a great example of that.

10

I really like the fact that Fred Thompson believes in States rights, and his voting record demonstrates that. Between the top tiered Republican candidates, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney are my guys.

But let's face facts. Fred Thompson is not pro-life. He even uses the words of pro-abortion advocates. He calls making laws against abortion at the State level "criminalization" bringing into our minds the vision of tossing young women into prison cells for having an abortion.

Fred Thompson has been pretty straight forward (For a politician) about his views here. He want to overturn Roe V Wade and send it back to the States. But he opposes making abortion illegal at the state level.

This is not a pro-life position.

As for your constant digs at Romney, i'm with Dennis Prager on this one. Dennis prager likes to say that he doesn't really care what a person says, it what a person does that matters. Which is why he didn't flip out over Mel Gibson's anti-jewish slurs.

The "non-flip-flopper" Thompson has put his time and effort into helping and supporting a pro-abortion lobby group. The "flip-flopper" Romney (Not sure if he flip-flopped or just flipped) has not actively supported pro-abortion groups or sought to change laws in favor of abortion advocates.

I'm willing to accept both men at their word and would be incredibly happy to have either of them as my Republican candidate for President. But Joe, why must you always try and get a dig in on Romney when your man hasn't even bothered to enter the race?

I predict Fred Thompson won't even enter the race. Although I hope this prediction turns out to be wrong.

But what annoys me about his not entering the race is that his supporters are busily tearing down other candidates like Mitt Romney to help a candidate who might not ever have run. Will we be better off if Hillary Clinton wins and becomes our next President over Mitt Romney all because folks like Joe Carter pledged they wouldn't vote for him due to dumb dog stories?

Maybe there was some wisdom in what Reagan said.

11

From the total number of hours billed (less than 20) and hours talking to people other that this group (3-1/2) it sounds a lot more like "advising" than "advocating for." Indeed, it is likely that what he had to tell them was to "forget it." Had he given them hope to accomplish what they wanted, it would have led to more than 20 hours of work.

12

Every 24 hours 1,000 babies are aborted. You can sit there and twist yourselves into a pretzels trying to defend him. But it appears nearly 1,000 babies lost their lives while Fred was getting paid to help make it happen. Its disgusting!

13

Why can't we just forgive Mr. Thompson and move on to his good qualities. He will win the South in next year's primaries.

14

Thompson does not support criminalizing abortion in first trimester. He virtually said this to Hannity but was saved by Hannity. He has said this in the past in writing. He is not prolife even now but claims to be. With this latest episode he further shows himself to be deceitful and untrustworthy.

PS What do you call someone who does not support criminalizing 1rst trimester abortions?

Prolife? NO
Fred Thompson? YES

15

I think I agree largely with Baggi, above about Thompson.

The University of Tennessee has Fred Thompson's personal Senate papers on loan. (I thought that was strange since Thompson did his undergraduate work at Memphis and his law degree at Vanderbilt, but whatever.) In 1994 he talked in a candidate survey for the newspaper The Tennessean about how abortion should ultimately be the woman's choice, not the government's decision.

Right now Thompson is running the perfect campaign - by not running. He's avoiding a lot of vetting. I don't think his finances are public yet. If you can't see his expense reports, you'll never know about his $400 haircut (or whatever the equivalent is his life turns out to be).

I don't think Fred will turn out to be the candidate that the Far Religious Right is looking for. (He may be the candidate Neal Boortz is looking for, I'm not sure.) I think Fred will turn out to be part of the Culture of Corruption. I think he would carry on many of Bush's policies in education and foreign affairs.

I suppose it could be worse: at least he's not Jim Gilmore.

16

I listened tonight to a couple interviews about Thompson on "All Thing Considered" (that horrible, horrible liberal show). From the first interview, with one of Fred's campaign staff members, I learned that:

1. Fred is #1 or #2 in the polls because he has the right persona to be president.

2. Campaigners rented him the red truck to campaign in Tennessee because Fred hated campaigning. They thought the truck would make it more fun for him.

From the second interview I learned that the piece of legislation Fred is most associated with is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Apparently he is now trying to put some distance between himself and that law.

Regarding abortion, it is no mere thing that James Dobson said that Fred had never been considered an ally of the pro-life movement.

As I pointed out elsewhere, it is also odd that a man who hasn't been a church member since about 1959 is the darling of the religious right.

17

Just ask yourself this: What reasonable alternative do we have?

Giuliani? Please. Talk about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Romney? I'm not feeling inclined to trust him too far, considering how he conveniently saw the light JUST in time to start running for president.

Brownback? Huckabee? I wish. Either would be ideal -- and I've even donated to one of them -- but their campaigns are already running out of gas. It isn't fair, but presidential politics aren't fair.

I say again, it looks like Thompson's all we've got. He's not the ideal pro-life candidate by any means, but if what I learned in history class is correct, Lincoln wasn't the ideal abolitionist candidate either. Take the best option and then push him on the life issues as hard as we can -- that's all we can do.

18

Ok, I got here late. And the odds that anyone reads this declines by the day.

But I gotta say, Joe, I think you are taking this way too serious. I understand your desire for integrity, and I applaud that. But really, Fred made $5000 14 years ago, but everyone expects him to remember the details? I make much less than Fred. 14 years ago, $5000 represented a MUCH larger part of my income than it did for Thompson, and I have no idea what happened to any of the money, income, expenses, nothing. Not the slightest memory.

I can remember getting ready to move out of state, and the daughter's softball program. But money? Not so much.

So did his 3.3 hours represent some major philosophical commitment to abortion, or was it simply an accomodation to a law firm that was doing him a favor by providing an office. It seems that the senior partner of the law firm, or president, or high muckety muck said that it was in the favor category.

Finally, it was a hit piece. The implication was, and is, that Fred Thompson was a dedicated pro-abortionist, and is now a hypocrite trying to hide the fact. It just ain't true. I believe that Fred told the truth, he did not remember. I also believe that Fred is, at the very least, as pro-life as Romney, and much more pro-life than Rudy. I believe that the Fred has traction because no one else represents the majority opinion of conservatives in this nation.

I would like to see any ideas you might have on Dobson's attack. Dobson was in his pro-Gingrich mode, and was looking to isolate Thompson. Did his statements destroy his influence? Gingrich has no chance, Rudy is pro-abortion, and Mitt is, well, Mitt. So what is Dobson going to do now?

19

Hi Scott,

I don't think it's about $5000. If it's true, if he'd taken the money to advocate and lobby for neo-Nazis, or for decriminalizing marijuana, or for greater funding for stem cell research, or for a constitutional amendment to make prostitution legal nationwide (well regulated prostitution, of course) - wouldn't you look back and ask yourself if that wasn't a pretty serious lapse of political judgment? Wouldn’t you wonder what he really thought about that issue, and what actions we could expect when he reached the pinnacle of political achievement, the Presidency?

And if he took the money and didn't do anything for it, if it's determined that he defrauded the pro-abortion group out of $5K, is that not a problem?

I'm not talking about remembering money. I'm talking about remembering associations, or maybe even remembering crimes you've committed. The money, whether it was five dollars or five million, is almost irrelevant...

20

Greg, the amount is only irrelevant if the purpose is to paint Thompson as a hypocritical, opportunistic misbegotten son of questionable parentage. Which was the intent of the two Hillary!® supporters who broke the story.

As I pointed out, a senior partner at Arent said that Thompson was doing the law firm a favor, reciprocation, as it were. He was not actively engaged in lobbying for the group.

If the best anyone comes up with is this, then Fred is pretty safe. In spite of trollish efforts to keep the pot boiling. I'll bet you that this is only an issue on certain blogs, with certain people, who will try to paint Thompson as a modern day Herod intent on destroying the children. I doubt seriously that this is an issue in another month.

Here's a question for you to ponder: is Thompson's supposed "lapse" less than, equal to, or greater than Hillary!®'s support for partial birth abortion, socialized medicine, the pardons-for-pay of the last days of the Billary!® presidency?

Joe, bud, get over this! It wasn't worth the post, it sure ain't worth any residual grief that you may be feeling.

21

Scott,

I kind of agree with you. Fred Thompson was most likely telling the truth when he said he didn't remember. And Joe certainly should get over this.

For the record, i'm still not convinced Fred Thompson is even going to run for the President.

22

"Brownback? Huckabee? I wish. Either would be ideal -- and I've even donated to one of them -- but their campaigns are already running out of gas. It isn't fair, but presidential politics aren't fair."

How is it not fair?

In a way, though, I'm on your side; I would love to see either of those fellows nominated by the republicans. Not that I would want for a president someone so ignorant or pandering that they would claim not to believe in the validity of the TOE. It's just that either man would lead the GOP to a much-needed defeat in '08.

23

I think the true test of whether Fred would be a good candidate or not is very simple.

How does his stand on the issues compared with Jorge the Younger.

Since Jorge has been a complete and abysmal failure, he's working real hard on taking the title of worst ever from Jimmy Caaatar.

If Fred is anything like Jorge, run, run for your life!!!

24

How does Fred's investment portfolio look? Does he own any funds with Marriot? In fact everything that he owns and buys flows into the GDP valuations of all the great sins of the world. No. You can't vote for Fred.