Fred Thompson explains that he's pro-life by conviction, but willing to take pro-choice positions in exchange for money! Raise your hand if you're impressed by the depth of his commitment to the sanctity of life.
« Retreat to Kurdistan | Main | The Iraqi View »
I Didn't Mean It!
12 Jul 2007 10:03 am
Comments (25)
It ticks me off that he uses the law analogy. Practicing law and lobbying are not the same thing, or even particularly similar. Lawyers need to have that level of distance from their clients because otherwise there wouldn't be anyone to represent murderers and child molesters, and then the system breaks down. This just isn't true in lobbying. You can set aside your personal beliefs and lobby for something you don't believe in for money--that happens all the time. But there's no code, spoken or unspoken, that says you're not accountable for that choice.
Maybe we ought to elect him president, then bribe him to adopt sensible policies?
All he has to do is be more pro-life than Giuliani -- not exactly a difficult task.
Reminds me of the punchline to that old joke:
We've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price.
Political candidates get a lot of flak for (real or imagined) instances of hypocricy or flip-flopping. And indeed hypocricy is unappealing and is a character deficiency. But as Matt has pointed out in the case of his relative lack of dislike for Mitt Romney, there are other deficiencies that are *way* worse, like homicidal blood-thirstiness and megalomania. I suspect that the former gets more attention than the latter because of the experiences of our daily lives: we have all personally had bad experiences with hypocritical shitbags, but few of us have personally run into anyone truly dangerous.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/05/the_worst_youve.html
There are plenty of Democrats who were pro-life before they went for the Presidency, and plenty of Republicans who were pro-choice before they did.
I find it amusing that you spot Thompson engaged in this, and act surprised.
Shorter Fred: I'll be pro-choice for the right money.
What I find amazing is Thompson's initial unequivocal denial of doing this work, which I can assure you he did. I would have thought he would have invoked the old "I'm a lawyer and I'll do anything for a price" defense, which is what he now seems to be saying.
The pretense that he did not lobby for and is not familiar with this group is an utter fabrication and is going to bite him in the ass.
Fred Thompson: "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV..."
"The pretense that he did not lobby for and is not familiar with this group is an utter fabrication and is going to bite him in the ass."
Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does anything a Republican does or says come back to bite him in the ass? If it did Rudy would be scooting around on stumps, his ass having been chewed through to the other side of his body. Same goes for Gingrich. These guys can have multiple marriages, mistresses, girlfriends on the side, mobsters and felons on their payroll and bank vaults full of lobbying fees for any organization capable of writing a check. Does any of it matter? Hell no, they're leading contenders for President of the nation. Fox News would be cleaning spunk off anchor desks if this crew had D's instead of R's after their names. Nah, no asses getting bit here.
There are plenty of Democrats who were pro-life before they went for the Presidency, and plenty of Republicans who were pro-choice before they did. I find it amusing that you spot Thompson engaged in this, and act surprised.
It's not the ideological shift, so much as the ham-handed subterfuge. Also, Thompson comes across as a sanctimonious twit, who goes for the cheap pop far more than your average politician. The man exploits style over substance to a fault -- so when he can even get the former right, it makes one seriously question him in regards to the latter.
Perhaps I'm just a pansy, perhaps I'm unconvinced about the ability of the Democrats to fight back, or perhaps I'm convinced the electorate will make a decision based on something dumb. Or maybe I'm reading too much into the "flies in the summertime" line. Whatever the case, I'm sort of worried that if the Democratic candidate throws a verbal dart at Thompson during the debate, he'll respond with something stupid like, "Son, you're making me angry..." for Obama or Edwards, or "Listen, little lady..." for Clinton, and look like he's a commanding authority for it.
He said: "35 years of law practice". How old IS this guy? He was in the Senate for 8 years, a lobbyist for 20 years (according to Wiki) and hasn't he been on Law and Order since our TVs had tubes? It's not like he said he'd been a lawyer for 35 years, he said in "35 years of law [sic] practice"
With only 6% of Americans thinking Libby should be pardoned, his "base" seems to be shrinking. If there were any justice (sanity?) in the world his work for Libby would sink him, not abortion.
Brian: he will definitely do that. Its not just the "flies in the summertime" - look at how he responded to Michael Moore's letter ("a mental institution looks like a good idea") and to the charges he was nothing but a mole for the White House during Watergate ("Im glad people are reading my book finally").
Seems to be the blueprint for him. The guy is quick with the wit and the journalists covering him swoon. Remind you of anyone?
Bart: How could you Krusty, I'd never lend my name to an inferior product.
Krusty: Oh! They drove a dumptruck full of money up to my house. I'm not made of stone!
I sympathize with steve duncan's "Does anything a Republican does or says come back to bite him in the ass?" but it's a very different situation now. Because the other Republican candidates will make sure it comes back to bite him in the ass. I'm telling you, this Republican primary is going to be the dirtiest thing we've ever seen, just because it's anyone's ballgame. They are going to rip each other apart.
He said: "35 years of law practice". How old IS this guy?
The 35 years of law practice and the 20 years as a lobbyist are co-extensive. Some lawyers go to court; some write contracts; some lobby the government. Any major law firm has a lobbying department (generally not called that, however!), comprised of lawyers with connections in government who can help the firm's clients get things done politically.
He will be 65 in a couple of weeks and has Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.
And he's a liar.
But he's really, really tall and makes manly men like Chris Matthews swoon.
So, by the pro-lifers own logic, it would be fair to say that Fred Thompson likes to kill babies for cash, right?
This is just another example of the GOP leadership's hypocrisy on all of the "morals" issues. They don't give a damn about any of it (look at how they tried to protect Mark Foley). It's all just pandering. I'd respect them more if I thought they had principled objections to gay marriage, abortion/contraception etc. (as I think some of their followers do), but I don't. They just like screaming about these issues because it gets a portion of the electorate engaged, and creates a great distraction from how they and their corporate sponsors are robbing the country blind. Incidentally, I share the fears of some other commenters that the press will love Thompson's faux folkiness; a repeat of Bush-Gore is indeed quite possible.
I'll speak as an ardent pro-lifer who is not terribly bothered by any of this, save (for reasons independent of anything to do with abortion) for a reservation about the instant denial by the spokesman. We will not likely know whether that was directly from FDT or simply overstatement by Corallo--if the former, it's troubling.
But if the latter, any astute pro-lifer would know that FDT has never claimed that he's really one of us. He has (even recently) implied he's agnostic about the early status of the foetus, and that as a Tennessee state legislator he'd be against an early abortion ban. Therefore, it's not particularly worrisome to imagine that as a lobbyist he would not have had huge qualms about helping in some way with the relatively small beer matter alleged here.
I, and many pro-life voters, would of course ideally have a President who shared our views down the line. But as against Rudy (who clearly favors the legality of abortion much more extensively than FDT) or Romney (who has made only craven switches), FDT looks to be fairly consistent over time. He's a staunch opponent of Roe and, so far as federal politics are concerned therefore, perfecly suitable to pro-life voters. If Roe is someday overturned and I have to face whether to vote for FDT as my state legislator somewhere, I'll try to find someone better. But as a matter of presidential politics, this just doesn't amount to much.
As I say, if it became clear that FDT had himself directed Corallo to make the blanket denial, I'd be bothered by that. But all indications are otherwise--there was only one blanket denial, and then the more general "I don't remember doing anything, and so if I did anything it was minor, and routine for a lawyer like me." I can buy all that from one who has never claimed (that I'm aware of) to believe in life from conception.
Guys, you have to stop knocking all the ludicrous Republicans out of the race this early - after all, they are going to run -someone- next year, and if you keep whacking all the dopes, they might actually find someone electable. Save the ammo for after nomination.
I'll speak as an ardent pro-lifer who is not terribly bothered by any of this,
As someone who is pretty agnostic on abortion, I'd really appreciate any "pro-lifer" who liked Bush and Iraq to kindly shut the fuck up and stick a gun in their mouth and leave humanity alone.
Ed, your sweet and gentle liberalism really makes one want to love pacifism, hug puppies, and join the Kucinich for President campaign!
You ought to be in sales . . .
Comments closed July 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Consider my hand raised, but not in acknowledgment of his commitment to the sanctity of life. My hand is raised because of his commitment to the sanctity of the flip-flop.
Maybe he should run on a ticket with Mitt Romney.
Posted by Bloggernista | July 12, 2007 10:07 AM