Newsweek touted Thompson's "willing[ness] to buck his party" in committee investigation, but not his later reported capitulation
SUMMARY: A Newsweek article cited former Sen. Fred Thompson's leadership of a 1997 investigation into Republican campaign finance irregularities as evidence that he "was willing to buck his party." However, Thompson shut down the investigation before Democrats could introduce evidence linking GOP lawmakers to a fundraising group they claimed had skirted campaign finance laws.
An article in the June 25 edition of Newsweek cited former Sen. Fred Thompson's (R-TN) leadership of a 1997 Governmental Affairs Committee investigation into campaign finance irregularities as evidence that he "was willing to buck his party." However, while Thompson did initially undertake an investigation of Republicans as well as Democrats, he shut down the investigation before Democrats were able to introduce evidence linking Republican lawmakers to Triad Management, a fundraising group that Democrats claimed had skirted campaign finance laws. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported on November 1, 1997, that Thompson "abruptly halted" the investigation and that "Democrats noted that Thompson's cancellation of hearings coincided with questions emerging this week about Republican-backed groups using millions of dollars to help party candidates in last year's election. With Thompson unwilling to examine those questions in public hearings, Democrats said it is time to move on and fix the flawed campaign-finance system."
From the June 25 edition of Newsweek:
Like McCain, Thompson showed he was willing to buck his party, even if it meant making enemies. In 1997, he was appointed to lead hearings into Democratic fund-raising abuses in the 1996 campaign. It was a starring role for a first-term senator and a nod at his popularity within the GOP. But the warm feelings didn't last. When Thompson broadened his investigation to look into alleged abuses by Republicans, he became an enemy to his party. "Fred was under considerable pressure to turn up and publicize evidence of wrongdoing [by Clinton], but his goal throughout was to be thorough and fair, and that didn't endear him to either side," says Sen. Susan Collins, a friend of his.
Thompson's probe -- which concluded without a splash -- left him on the outs with GOP heavyweights. His archives show he repeatedly requested a seat on the Senate intelligence committee. But Majority Leader Trent Lott [R-MS], once a close ally, snubbed him.
The tension between Lott and Thompson was reportedly the result of Thompson's decision to focus the hearings on campaign finance reform in addition to allegations of illegal fundraising by Democrats. On October 6, 1997, The Washington Times reported that Lott and Thompson had "barely uttered a word to each other in six months." The Times explained:
It all started one fateful day last March when Mr. Thompson, with the backing of only four other GOP senators, outmaneuvered his party's leadership to broaden the scope of the committee's investigation to cover not only "illegal" acts by the Democratic Party, but also "improper" acts by both parties. Mr. Thompson was hoping the hearings would set the stage for campaign-finance reform.
Mr. Lott and Majority Whip Don Nickles, Oklahoma Republican, on the other hand, both strong opponents of the campaign-finance bill, opposed the "improper" language. But Mr. Thompson and his supporters, including Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and co-sponsor of the legislation, won the fight.
In exchange for cooperation from Democrats on his committee, who agreed to vote with the Republican majority to grant immunity to witnesses who would be helpful in the investigation, Thompson agreed to support Democrats' efforts to investigate Republican fundraising efforts. A July 1, 1997, editorial in The Washington Post explained that arrangement:
As a sign of newly found comity, the 16-member committee voted unanimously to grant immunity to four witnesses who might be able to shed light on possible laundering of donations to 1996 Democratic campaigns. The immunized witnesses could be especially helpful in exposing the possible role of foreign influence and money in last year's races. The committee's decision, however, does more than advance the inquiry into Democratic fund-raising. As a result of Democratic cooperation on the immunity offer, Sen. Thompson has agreed to support subpoenas requested by Democrats and, where necessary, to press compliance with subpoenaed Republican inclined organizations. The list includes former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour and the RNC-affiliated National Policy Forum.
But on November 1, 1997 -- the day after Thompson shut down the investigation -- an article in The Tampa Tribune noted Republicans' dissatisfaction with the hearings. The article asserted that Republicans were "openly appalled that the hearings have led to a Justice Department investigation into former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour for his role in soliciting foreign contributions for a tax-exempt Republican think tank." The Boston Globe reported that day that "Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, have criticized Thompson for allowing Democrats to spend a week earlier this year examining the dealings of former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour."
Additionally, Thompson's disagreement with Lott over the focus of the hearings notwithstanding, the Globe reported on November 1, 1997, that "[a]fter Republicans expressed concern that the Senate campaign-finance investigation could lead to a probe of GOP practices, Senator Fred Thompson yesterday suspended the hearings, saying he had run out of quality witnesses who could testify about Democratic campaign irregularities." The Globe added that "continuing the Senate hearings likely would allow Democrats to control the agenda at some point and present evidence about GOP fund-raising practices."
On October 30, 1997 -- the day before Thompson adjourned the hearings altogether -- The New York Times reported that Senate investigators had evidence of Triad's connections to Republican lawmakers:
Documents released by Senate investigators today identified 20 donors to a private conservative organization that worked outside the normal political channels in ways that benefited conservative Republicans, including two members of the Senate committee investigating campaign finances.
One beneficiary was Senator Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican who as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee has been trying to persuade the Senate leadership to end the hearings that have proceeded for almost four months under the direction of Senator Fred Thompson, Republican of Tennessee.
Another committee member who benefited from the organization's activities was Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas.
Senator Nickles appeared in marketing advertisements for the organization, Triad Management Services, a consulting group that helped conservative donors make contributions outside the purview of Federal election laws. Mr. Nickles's political action committee received tens of thousands of dollars in donations in 1996 from some of Triad's biggest donors.
In Mr. Brownback's 1996 Senate race, a last-minute $400,000 television advertising blitz was paid for by Triad donors. These advertisements appeared in the closing weeks of the election and attacked his Democratic opponent as an out-of-state liberal.
The Times and others reported that "[h]earings had been scheduled for this week before the Governmental Affairs Committee into Triad's campaign activities, but Republicans on the committee canceled them after Democratic members of the committee obtained names earlier this week of Triad's donors."
An October 30, 1997, Roll Call article reported on Thompson's refusal to grant Democratic hearings as well:
Senate Governmental Affairs Chairman Fred Thompson (R-Tenn) is refusing to give Democrats their own day of hearings to air allegations of GOP fundraising abuses, saying they blew their chance when Democratic staffers allegedly obtained bank records improperly.
The bank records reveal the names of donors to two non-profit groups, Citizens for Reform and Citizens for the Republican Education Fund, which funded TV ads attacking Democratic candidates in the last election cycle. The contributions were solicited by Triad Management Inc., a GOP consulting firm that has come under heavy scrutiny by Democratic investigators.
One GOP committee aide said the manner in which Democratic staff obtained the records from Crestar Bank was "one of the most outrageous, unethical series of events we've seen to date."
The GOP aide added, "The chairman is going to have something to say about it... We're going to ask that something be done to the staff person involved in it."
In a letter to Thompson on Tuesday, Governmental Affairs ranking member John Glenn (D-Ohio) deplored "the false assertion that my staff has somehow acted improperly in regard to a subpoena for certain bank records of Triad Management. The fact is that they acted properly throughout."
Glenn has said that Thompson originally agreed to let him have three days of hearings, in addition to the three days Democrats controlled in August, to delve into GOP fundraising abuses. But GOP aides have strongly denied that such an agreement was ever made.
On November 1, 1997, the day after Thompson suspended the proceedings entirely, the Los Angeles Times reported on Democrats' suspicion that the hearings had been ended just in time to prevent examination of Brownback's and Nickles' connections to Triad. From the November 1, 1997, Los Angeles Times article:
Although Thompson said he reserved the right to resume hearings before the committee's Dec. 31 cutoff date if dramatic new evidence turns up, Democrats noted the suspension came as they were about to examine how two Republicans on the panel had benefited from secret donations given to a conservative consulting group.
Democrats had planned to call witnesses to show that the group, Triad Management Services, accepted donations totaling $400,000 to help Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) win election last year. Triad also paid for advertisements to benefit Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), according to documents.
Although no illegalities were alleged, the Triad episode was to demonstrate how Republicans as well as Democrats had taken advantage of private citizen groups -- with no contribution limits or disclosure requirements -- to finance campaign activities with no public reporting required and no limit on contributions.
Sen. John Glenn of Ohio, the ranking Democrat on Thompson's Governmental Affairs Committee, said in an interview Friday: "Obviously, they didn't want the Triad evidence to come out. But we'll include it in the final report."
The Boston Globe article from November 1, 1997, reporting on Thompson's cancellation of the remainder of the hearings also noted the connection and further noted that, even though Thompson had canceled the day of hearings he had promised to Democrats, "continuing the Senate hearings likely would allow Democrats to control the agenda at some point." From the Globe:
On the surface, it may seem surprising that Republicans don't want to continue an investigation that has focused on Clinton. But continuing the Senate hearings likely would allow Democrats to control the agenda at some point and present evidence about GOP fund-raising practices.
For example, the most outspoken advocate for ending the hearings is Senator Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican, who serves on the committee. Democrats have spent months accumulating documents about an organization called Triad Management that is tied to Nickles. Democrats said Triad took anonymous donations and funneled the money into advertisements that helped Republicans. Democrats have said the operation skirts campaign-finance laws and have noted Nickles once filmed an advertisement praising the group. Triad officials have denied any wrongdoing.
A Knight-Ridder Newspapers article from the same day corroborated the notion that Democrats were preparing to introduce information that might have damaged Nickles:
Nickles may have found himself under the spotlight if the hearings had continued and started examining independent groups, as Democrats wanted.
Democrats said Friday that the hearings were stopped just as they were about to start turning the spotlight on campaign spending by independent groups, including groups that help Republicans. The DNC issued a statement charging that Republicans were blocking the committee Democrats from turning the focus to a pro-Republican organization with ties to Nickles.
On the November 20, 1997, broadcast of NPR's All Things Considered, host Peter Overby noted that then-Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) claimed Thompson had shut down the hearings because the Triad questions were being raised and "the majority just needed a way to stop the process." From the November 20, 1997, broadcast of All Things Considered:
OVERBY: Democrats say Triad was more than an intermediary. It's illegal to coordinate spending between a congressional candidate and any outside group. Senator Robert Torricelli says Triad did exactly that.
TORRICELLI: This is not something that happened by chance. It appears to be an organization that was established for the very purpose of engaging in a conspiracy to violate the law.
OVERBY: Torricelli and other Democrats on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee wanted to hold a public hearing on Triad. [Director of Triad Management Services Carolyn] Malenick says she was eager to testify. She would have said Triad helped donors exercise their First Amendment rights, and did not illegally coordinate with any campaigns.
But then the Democrats obtained some of Triad's donor lists, and Committee Chairman Fred Thompson suspended public hearings indefinitely. Torricelli says the majority just needed a way to stop the process.
TORRICELLI: The problem with Triad is that its activities involved members of the Senate itself. It was a lot more interesting for senators to be investigating President Clinton, who was not represented on the committee and could not speak for himself, than to be engaged in looking at their own activities.
OVERBY: One senator's activities are especially interesting to Democrats. Don Nickles, the Senate's number two Republican, was the committee's most aggressive questioner when it was Democrats being interrogated, but he was also in that infomercial for Triad, and lavish in his praise.
By 1998, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) "had concluded that Triad had violated federal campaign laws by failing to register as a federal political committee," according to Roll Call (subscription required). A December 5, 2002, Kansas City Star article reported that the FEC found that "Brownback's in-laws, John and Ruth Stauffer of Topeka, violated federal election laws by funneling excessive campaign donations to him in 1996" through Triad and political action committees working with Triad. The FEC also ordered Brownback's campaign to refund to the U.S. Treasury $19,000 in over-the-limit contributions. A Media Matters for America search of the Lexis-Nexis database did not find any reports indicating that Nickles' reported involvement with Triad resulted in legal action.
Thompson did not have enough GOP backing to continue the hearings into 1998. The Boston Globe article noted that "Thompson acknowledged that he didn't have the necessary support among Republicans to reach the 60 votes needed to continue the probe into next year." An October 28, 1997, Associated Press article reported that Thompson had requested an extension from Lott, without which "his committee would be required to end its investigation into 1996 political fund-raising abuses by Dec. 31" of 1997. The November 1, 1997, Los Angeles Times article also noted that Thompson had not exhausted the funding allocated for the investigation: "The Senate committee has spent $ 2.6 million of its $ 4.3-million budget, Thompson said, adding that 'we ought to be able to turn back a pretty good chunk' to Congress."















I know this is off topic, and is not intended on being responded to because I don't want to hurt the responses to this post, but I would publicly like to thank MMFA's Webpage team for allowing dissent posted on their webpage.
I recently made my first post on the Daily Kos outlining libertarian Energy policies to reach energy independence, and enough people on the website trolled me that I can no longer post diaries, comments, or even edit my own old diary post.
So, although I disagree with everything MMFA believes, at least I'm willing to say thank you for allowing me to post dissenting comments. Otherwise, I think we can all agree the discussion would be pretty boring.
Please Don't respond to my post, I don't want to move this Thompson post off topic.
OTay C.D.
I've heard of thompson's action here before on these hearings. I'm waiting for the red truck. A comedy routine I heard on the radio is almost relavent.
Guy comes into a car parts store. Plops down a corroded dirty part on the counter and says,"I need one of these for my truck."
The attendent asks,"What kind of truck?"
"A pickup truck."
"What kind of pickup truck?"
"A red pickup truck! You new at this?"
Eweston, that was cute:-)
I wouldn't thank MMFA too vociferously just yet, since the censors here just haven't objected to your posts so far.
Thirty-nine posts were removed from the comments section for the article "Van Natta falsehood exposed..." on Sunday night or Monday morning.
MMFA gave no reason for this, but many of the posts were reactions to examples of real media misinformation and bias, about which the censors, er, "researchers" at this site know precisely nothing.
In typical liberal fashion dissent was detected, and then eliminated quickly.
In other words you were off topic. Trolling to change the subject is a valid reason to remove a post. Dont feel special I have posts removed all the time and I am one of the more lefty posters on this site.
Media Matters deletes posts and subsequent replies to a post if it is demonstrably off topic or if it looks like someone is purposely trying to change the topic. Right now, your post, Solon's reply and my reply are in danger of being deleted.
Yea...that's why they were deleted.
They were "off topic".
Do let me know when posts from liberals are deleted for this reason. I'm sure you'll tell me it happens all the time, with, conveniently, no way to prove it.
And I am sure you will deny it with convieniently no way to REFUTE IT. Wait you already did.
I am as lefty as they come and I've been banned, censored and had posts deleted from this blog. Over at the Huff Post I can post a series of explicatives and insults and it stays. I prefer the occasional slap on the wrists that I get here. Many blogs simply aren't worth posting too because the "conversation" degrades quickly. MMfA isn't perfect but it's a heck of a lot more civil than most.
fireside chat snoopy dumps and humps on your post.
39 posts, gone.
Not 38 or 40 but 39.
I'm sure, since you're counting, you can tell us how many were posts from those on either the right or the left.
You've got to grow up Rog. We all have posts deleted. Some of the best material, from both sides disappears. All it takes is one post that violates the rules and then every post and reply that branches from that original post gets the axe.
No posts are ever deleted because of views expressed, unless the views are obviously racist, sexist, obscene, or too personal.
Please show us a site on the right that tolerates dissent as much as this one does.
Kind of defensive aren't ya?
Yes, 39 posts. This is what one gets when 29 is subtracted from 68.
I don't care if the posts were more from lefties than righties, MMFA cencors this stuff when they don't like the remarks.
That's a basic tenet of the American far-left these days: dissent is not a good thing, even if it's only on one issue. Ask Joe Lieberman.
I've never seen any dissenting opinion deleted. Ever. I've seen quite a few things deleted because they were against the rules.
I doubt any of our regular posters from the right will back you up and say that posts are deleted because they are opinions not held by the majority.
I've broken the rules myself, a number of times and my posts were deleted. As they should have been.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Lieberman thing. You responded to my post and I doubt that there is any other poster on this site who has voted for Joe more than I have.
He lost his party's primary election and ran for re-election as an independent. He no longer gets to call himself a Democrat. He's been cozying up to the Re[publicans for some time now and many here see that as a problem.
I do.
That is of course ludicrous. I have been a member of MANY leftist political groups and there is NEVER anything close to unanimity of thought. As the old saying goes its like herding cats. Lieberman got tossed because it wasnt enough for him to disagree with the huge majority of the VERY BLUE Conneticut he had to insult them too, making insulting statements about the anti war movement and demanding everyone support Bush. I know its the rightwing talking point so you are compelled to repeat it no matter how ridiculous it is but really you cant expect anyone to take such tripe seriously
Posts were deleted because they were conservative?! That's so lame, especially when the first post on the topic, which is still there, is from a rightie.
Nah...the posts were deleted because they began with 15 or so real examples of media bias, and they made the people who run this site look like paranoid amateurs who have to stretch whatever they can into supposed bias.
I noticed MMFA had problems with one of their articles Sunday night or Monday morning, and the first page or so of comments on an article disapeared. One poster asked where all the first posts went, but they all returned a bit later.
So Roger, Do you like thompson? Please try to express your opinions about him. Inumerating our positions on your opinions at the same time makes for no discusion. I feel this may be hard for you to do, I'd like to see an effort from you.
And I'll tell Joe Moma if you don't.;)
E,
I'm not sure why you'd think it would be hard for anyone to express an opinion on a candidate, so perhaps that was a witless attempt at an insult, or perhaps you were just drunk and making no sense.
Either way, I like Fred. We don't know much of what we'll need to know to make a sound judgement but I like what I've read and heard thus far. He's a proponent of tax cuts, just as JFK and Reagan were. He doesn't take Reid seriously, but then again I don't know anyone who does, including my liberal friends who wish he'd retire tomorrow along with Bush, Cheney and Pelosi.
I'm not pro-life but I agree with Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg who feels that Roe v. Wade was founded on a legal foundation about as sound as Clinton's devotion to the bible he carried around briefly after the Monica story broke.
He wants the border secured (or at least a very serious effort) before bothering with any other immigration details like the amnesty deal Reid will try to bring back soon. (Yes I know many of you refuse to call it amnesty. I don't care. When a Mexican for example is told he can go home, pay a fine, wait a while...then come back legally; or just stay where he is, pay for a Z visa and become as legit as he needs or wants to be 24-48 hours later, knowing his health care and anything else he wants is on the house [your tax dollars hard at work] that's called "amnesty". Then again, you people think loud music or lack of sleep constitute "torture" so we probably shouldn't get lost in right vs. left definitions.)
He's a better communicator than any other candidate in either party by far. Always helpful.
That will have to do for now, I'm beat. I breathlessly await your reply, E, or at least yet another priceless example of Solon's slightly disturbing obsession with me.
Don't flatter yourself I just respond to posts that amuse me to respond to. Even ignorant ones like yours. Get over yourself
Ah, a pro-torture conservative, how nice. I wonder, have YOU ever been shackled naked to a floor in a freezing room, unable to stand or sit? How about the things you dismiss so lightly- had music blasted at hearing-damaging levels for hours at a time so that you were unable to sleep for days?
Of course you haven't had to go thru these things, which is why you think they don't matter- pure unadulterated ignorance.
Only morons and savages think torture's a good thing. Experts know that it's about the worst, most ineffective thing you can do.
So, I guess we know what you are.
And guess what? This post will be deleted by MMfA.
It must be awful for people who want to slit the throats of you and your children while you watch and they laugh, to have to be "shackled naked to a floor in a freezing room, unable to stand or sit". The poor things! All they wanted to do was rape and kill your daughter! What's the problem with that?
It's just so...mean! Why can't we offer them cookies and warm milk and tell them, as Chris Matthews said, that we're all the same, and that they just "have a different perspective"?
People like you whine about how those who want you and you family dead are treated, and then when they succeed at killing someone, you blame not the people who did it, but the evil Americans who wanted to do all they could to get information which could save your life.
And then you wonder why the left is thought of as a national joke on matters like terrorism.
Being forced to listen to loud music isn't torture. Neither is being kept awake. That's how the left and their allies in the media have defined it so they can whine about "torture" whenever possible. Having live bamboo shoots forced under your fingernails, and having them grow inside your hand--that's torture.
Complain all you want about "torture", the moment terrorists hit us again, and they will, you'll be the first to whine that we weren't tough enough on terrorism, even though it's pretty damn difficult to scan the congressional record all day and find examples of anti-terrorism legislation supported by a majority of Democrats. How proud you must be to be known as the party of timid little girls.
The phony koran-flushed-down-the-toilet story was all over the airwaves. and the media still won't shut up about Abu Ghraib.
But when Al Qaeda's instruction manual for torture was released, it was ignored by ABC, NBC, CBS evening news broadcasts and CNN the next day. Conservative media, lmao. Some American idiot takes pictures of a terrorist in a dog collar, and you and your leftist media pals call it "torture". Al Qaeda teaching people how to chop off limbs? Not a word from you, the mainstream media, shAmnesty Int'l, the Useless Nations, etc.
Severing limbs, using a blow torch on the skin, pulling out an eyeball or two, using drills and hot irons...these are all in Al Qaeda's manual.
And this moron is worried about a terrorist who wants him dead having to sit on a cold floor? Jesus Christ, get a grip man.
You should be ashamed to utter Jesus’ name in that post.
Why?
Even Jesus took his name in vain once in a while.
I forget where in the bible you'll find this, but Jesus very clearly says at one point "John, dude, you're a baptist for Christ's sake!"
You don't remember that? Jesus tap-dancin' Christ what's the matter with you.
You need to read your bible and show the lord some goddamn respect.
The murder, kill, death speak just seemed out of touch with the teachings of Jesus. That’s all.
You're the one that needs to get a grip.
You should read the Geneva Conventions sometime. You might also talk to people who've served in our military and ask them how they feel about wearing the uniform of a nation that refuses to sink to the level of our enemies.
Most were proud to serve because the country they were serving had values, honor and the respect of the rest of the world..
No comment on Al Qaeda's torture manual ?
What a shock, you'd fit right in at MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN.
Since the very simple point escaped you, we aren't torturing people by making them listen to Flock of Seagulls. Barbara Streisand, yes, but they wouldn't dare be that cruel.
"a nation that refuses to sink to the level of our enemies."
Let me know when we tear out their eyes, hack off their limbs and burn them with irons.
Sitting on a cold floor, rofl.
What a party of girls...
What others do has no bearing on the behavior of our military.
Some of the people who we've held as prisoners have died from the treatment they received in our prisons.
Some members of our military have been tried, convicted and are currently serving prison sentences for their behavior in our prisons.
And several of us "girls" are ourselves combat vets, so go sell your excuses to the bedwetters.
What a heartless soulless cretin you are. Still trying to deny we HAVE tortured people. You are sick. I bet your soul decided it was so out of here long ago.
Not only are you a moron you are a useful idiot. A whole lot more than loud music is being talked about People were sodomized, raped and MURDERED and there isnt a bit of evidence ANY of them would slit someones throat. The Red Cross said between 70 and 90% of those at Abu Ghraib were just picked up in sweeps and were guilty of nothing. You dont care. In your intense bigotry they LOOK like the bad guys and that is a good enough reason to torture them. And you wonder why people think rightwingers are soulless heartless blackhearted fascists. Lindsey Graham that is REPUBLICAN Senator Lindsey Graham said the photos saw depicted RAPE AND MURDER. Even Rumsfeld called them inhuman and cruel
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/07/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/07/politics.abuse.main/
"There are other photos -- many other photos -- that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee
Now I am willing to bet were it YOUR SON sodomized with chemical lights, raped or murdered you would consider it torture but as long as it is done to THEM over there and they look like the bad guys you just dont care.
The Red Cross said between 70 and 90% of those at Abu Ghraib were just picked up in sweeps and were guilty of nothing.
Innocent because the Red Cross said so...priceless.
Sometimes this site's better than Seinfeld.
well you can flip your name tommy-boy but you are always wrong;
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3227219&page=1
So, basically, you like Fred because Fred likes tax cuts and militarized borders. Sounds identical to any given Republican candidate already in the race.
Round,
I could not have made this more clear:
We don't know much of what we'll need to know to make a sound judgement but I like what I've read and heard thus far.
I like how you phrased that one part, "militarized borders", lol. How dare we insist that people follow the law. They're "undocumented Americans" after all, right?
Using Reid's embarrassing lack of logic, every human on earth is an undocumented American.
Your party is soft on crime and terrorism, and for some reason you people like proving it routinely.
Fair enough, use your own phraseology.
If I remember correctly, wasn’t the question something like, what do you like about Thompson, or do you like Thompson? The only issues oriented response in your answer was tax cuts and border security. Do tax cuts and border security sound any different than any other cookie-cutter Republican candidate running? Even Ron Paul likes those things.
Bring some insight.
I will slow down.
Thompson is not even an official candidate at this point. His website has a few speeches and a few of his thoughts on a limited number of issues like abortion, immigration and taxes.
I offered my thoughts on the three policy issues he has discussed. Are there more Fred Thompson speeches on the web that I haven't read? Yes. Am I going to read them right now to satisfy the demands of someone who cannot understand this next sentence, which I have had to post three times now?
"We don't know much of what we'll need to know to make a sound judgment but I like what I've read and heard thus far."
No.
Someday soon he'll be a candidate and he'll be included in the debates, at which point we'll know a lot more about him.
I love politics. I enjoy this entire process. I'm not one of those angry idiots who says he or she won't be happy again or won't feel like a real American until the correct party runs the White House. That's for far-left douchebags who aren't really mad at the politicos in DC, they're mad at themselves and don't like their lives. Boo freakin hoo, keep it to yourself or fix it.
This stuff is fun for me no matter who's in power. Part of the fun is watching guys like Thompson make their moves. He is very wisely letting the other guys beat the crap out of each other in the debates while he kicks back, lets the rumors of his candidacy spread, and without doing or saying much at all, becomes known as the real conservative in the race even though there isn't enough evidence to prove he's consistently to the left or right of anyone in the GOP field.
We don't even know how he thinks on a number of issues, but the buzz is obviously working. He just took over first place in the latest Rasmussen poll from Rudy.
It's equally fun to watch Obama make Hillary's vaunted political machine occasionally act as though it's new to this stuff. It's a blast watching the Dems squirm their way out of votes for the war, blaming it all on Bush even though Hillary, Bill, Sandy Burglar, Rockefeller, Albright, Gore and the rest made very clear back when Bush was still the gov in Texas that Saddam and his WMD's had to be removed from power.
We'll learn more about Fred very soon. I'll like what I hear, or I won't. It'll be a blast for me no matter what.
It is fun stuff. Observing the process. Grassroots activism.
It’s a ton of fun being part of the progressive movement, watching the left deconstruct conservatism. The progressive values of mutual responsibility, effective government and broad prosperity are slowly, slowly taking primacy over the worn down vision of conservatism.
Just watching modern conservatism collapse under its own monumental failures, as it tries to reinvent itself in a more liberal image, is fun enough. You know what I’m talking about, the GOP out there co-opting progressive energy independence frames. Trying to convince Americans that energy independence means more dependence on petroleum, “we just need to drill here and build more refineries.”
Won’t work, Americans know the difference between clean, sustainable, renewable energy and the dead-end that is fossil fuel.
It’s also interesting to observe pissed-off Republicans, or whatever they are calling themselves, issue spittle laden, vein popping indictments of the left. They’re out here, the hollow echoes that the Dems are squirming away from their Iraq vote.
We know better, we know George is holding the troops hostage with his presidential veto of funding for the troops. How stupid do Republicans think Americans are?
Yeah, I’m glad we could agree that this political season is a joy to behold. Thanks for sharing, Rog!
The progressive values of mutual responsibility, effective government and broad prosperity
Mutual responsibility = socialism.
Effective gov't = no such thing, a dream for aging, useless hippies too stupid or burned out to have noticed that even though the postal system is the best federal agency we have, it's a complete bureaucratic nightmare.
Broad prosperity = a more interesting way of saying "envy of the successful". There will always be poor people in America. It'll almost always be their own fault. Check any bit of research you want, most poor people don't stay in that category very long. They improve their own lives. Read "Myths of Rich and Poor" by W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm. You'll learn a few things. But there are more poor people on the way, many of them from Central America, and the left will always be around to make the not-so-bright citizens think they could make it big if only mean old Uncle Sam would give them more help in the form of other people's tax dollars.
Just watching modern conservatism collapse under its own monumental failures
The war was handled poorly. Bush and congress spent money like they were the Dems in charge of the House from roughly 1954 to 1994. As usual, the Dems didn't win anything. The GOP blew it.
Why do you think we've had only two (2, deux, dos, dwee, due, doi, divi, dva, du:, ni, II) Democrats elected president in the last 43 years. That's a long time to have only two of your guys in charge, lol. Real mainstream stuff eh?
The GOP isn't co-opting anything. Do you remember Clinton's tax cut for the rich, the cap gains tax cut (that bastard! how dare he help Bill Gates!)? He did what made sense, but it didn't make the Dem party the party of low taxes. Both parties usurp the other side's issues when it's politically expedient. You must be new to this stuff not to know that.
Roundhouse you kind of lost it at the end there, so I'll leave those last few comments alone. Try decaf tomorrow.
I will add this however. If progressivism is so innate to the American existence, why was it called liberalism just a few years ago?
Why the shift in marketing strategy? It seems to me that if liberalism was such a stunning success (just look at those public schools! these kids are brilliant! liberals were right, the communists were friendly after all!), you'd still refer to it as liberalism.
Yes, I know you'll want to reply by saying the right demonized the word 'liberal', but that's childish. Liberalism had a long, long time to establish itself, and the only people criticizing it publicly were a few politicians and people who wrote for the National Review. Liberalism is adored by the media and you still had to resort to using a phony label like 'progressive' to try and fool people into thinking you're not liberals.
Ha.
(p.s. I didn't buy your act. As you wrote in your fairly bitter rant:
Yeah, I’m glad we could agree that this political season is a joy to behold.
"This" season is a joy to you since the Dems did very well in '06. I feel bad for ya. They're all a joy to behold, and you'll probably never understand that.)
Last things first. Nothing affirms ones own bilious nature like branding another person as bitter. We all give thanks for that personal revelation.
Liberals did go underground for a spell, thanks in small part, to the efforts of conservatives to demonize the left. Case in point, the desperate misrepresentation of effective government, broad prosperity and mutual responsibility. But the left let it happen, c’est la vie, those days are gone. The greatest fear of the GOP are coming to fruition, the left is moving out of their issues silos and into a unity of purpose. Environmentalists, labor unions, women’s right organizations, civil rights groups, netroots and other activists are uniting in a common moral worldview of empathy and responsibility. These diverse groups, with the help of citizen participants, like me, are realizing the long view. We are learning to forego immediate gains for the sake of the long-term agenda. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.
Actually it souds like the far right fascist morons during the entire Clinton presidency. You get stupider post by post and I wouldnt have believed that possible
Byrd = KKK, still uses the N word
Jackson = "hymietown"
Sharpton = jews are "diamond merchants"
yea...the GOP has a race problem.
"But then the Democrats obtained some of Triad's donor lists, and Committee Chairman Fred Thompson suspended public hearings indefinitely. Torricelli says the majority just needed a way to stop the process"
Thompson is a party player, and apparently not too concerned with ethics. Recent articles talk of his folksy manner and red pickup truck, both of which are an act, as he has spent most of his adult years as a corporate lobbyist. He may be an improvement over the current BushCo, but his opinions do not resonate at all with me. The kind of government that Thompson and other Washington pols have created put power and money overwhelmingly in the hands of a few corporate elites, who are ruining the middle class.
Grade F, I see no effort made by you comply with my rhetorical request.
Joe Mama is now on your case.
Sorry E, I briefly mistook you for an intelligent adult asking a reasonable question to which you wanted an answer.
I should've stuck with my first impression, that when someone insults you while asking a question, they don't really want to discuss anything at all.
Cya kid.
Actions have consequences.
Who in fact do you believe you are writing to?
What overall message are you giving to them?
How do you rate your sucess. Are you connecting with your audience. Are they getting the message.
Roger:
Your new post is much appreciated. I confess one part made me laugh out loud.
Thank you.
Kinda the way Nixon shut down the investigation into the 1960 election in Ill when the evidence coming back showed the repukes were not only wrong, but were the ones playing games in southern Ill?
oh, so sorry to interrupt the off-topic crap from the DKos spammer and widdle roger with an on-topic post. I know how that upsets them.