Captain's Quarters -

When the Post prints Hillary's senior thesis from Wellesley,
wake me.

Will Fred's supporters never tire of whining that their guy is being unfairly singled out for scrutiny by the media? Honestly, if you can't stand the heat . . .

I'm still waiting for the MSM to print John Kerry's military records.

There is no longer any doubt in my mind. There is only one man the MSM/DNC fears. He is Fred. They have been Rathergating him for almost 2 months now. Ever since his speech in OC.
Sadly it seems their smear attacks are in fact having some results as Fred's #'s in some recent polls ar a little off - after going up on a regular basis from Feb to July.

I will probably vote for him if for no other reason than the MSM/DNC is out to get him.
But - - I voted for GWB for the same reason and have been having second thoughts for 2 years.

Obviously the Left views Thompson as the greatest threat to their chances of seizing the White House or it wouldn't be publishing such a focused and continuous stream of such tirffles in an odious attempt to smear him as some sort of Liberal.

I wonder when the Post and the Morlocks will publish the Hildabeast's college thesis on great Marxists or cover her defense of the Black Panthers.

The Left needs to get over its whinning and try to get some balance which is tough when you're addicted to "fake but true" accounts that are credible only when having an Eloi for breakfast.

I think Fred supporters are a little overly sensitive. Say what you will about the Post, but they are equally despised by the Left for running numerous stories about John Edward's hair cut, Hillary's cleavage, Obama wanting to teach sex ed to kindergardners, etc... This is part of what being a presidential candidate has to go through.

If you want to be president, be prepared for the press to go through your life with a fine toothed comb. It is your reaction to that probing which lets the public know if you are prepared to withstand the hot lights of the presidency.

If you think it's bad what they are doing to Fred see what they are doing to one of their own. Google "the truth about Kos(daily Kos)" There's the politics of personal destruction being done before your very eyes. The moral is: Don't mess with the Clintons...They have contacts!

I find it strange that those calling themselves conservatives are so concerned about any
expose of Fred Thompson regarding anything.
Thompson is not a certified conservative and his total record will make that clear.
Why then should conservatives not want these issues brought up? They can then
truly evaluate his stand and decide if they really want Fred as their candidate.
What does Thompson have to offer? He looks 70 and when standing next to his trophy
wife he looks 90. He has no conservative track record at all, or anything of excellence
in his Senate years. He does not say anything of substance, but gives "conservative sounding " platitudes.
He is a former lackey of Senator Howard Baker who was a moderate at best.
He is not showing any political courage by hanging in the shadows staying above the fray. Or is this political shrewdness?
REAL conservatives are not going to jump on this guys bandwagon, but are going to wait
and see what actual choices they will have as the campaign progresses. To do other wise is no better than accepting fate and being cornered into supporting a candidate that doesn't possess the true heart of a conservative. This will only lead to compromises and concessions down the political road that will lead to the ultimate demise of Constitutional Government as we know it.

How ridiculous. I guess my question is when are we going to see the Post treat John Edwards like this.

Are we searching for the Ideological Messiah? Son of Ronald? Or do we want someone who can manage the U.S. government, make the middle happy, (the middle is a majority of citizens) provide a healthy role model, and just generally make us feel good. In that case ideologues have to make a comprise with the devil, because all the candidates did. The middle comprises every time they vote.

What on earth is a "certified conservative"?

I was a Democrat for over 20 years. My views changed over time, and eventually so did my voter registration. Today, I am quite solidly conservative, but I am NOT a "social conservative".

Thompson says what I want to hear. He understands the fight against Islamic jihad. He is for smaller government, lower taxes, a strong military, etc. That's quite good enough for me, and I imagine for a lot of others as well.

I'm sorry, but you are not going to get a Republican president if you insist on every single issue being perfectly addressed by one person. Most of the country is tired, tired, tired of the culture wars. We have real wars to fight. Let's move on, please.

So, we are still back down to the same basics we already knew;
He voted not guilty on Clinton's perjury charge, and in June '07 calls that perjury a "TRIVIAL MATTER" not rising to the level of impeachment;
Whitewater prosecutor protege of Howard Baker;
Best friend of McCain;
Worked McCain's 2000 Presidential Campaign as the Manager;
Supported, pushed, and voted for McCain Feingold, without regrets...

Plus the new revelation that Junior has been getting a $175,000 yearly salary for Pop's pac, in a NO-SHOW job - which won't influence anyone, one way or the other.

I'm going to be shocked if anyone trying to smear Fred comes up with anything substantial - if they had it, it would already be out, now. The rest of it is going to be attempting to commit a death by a thousand paper cuts. Very insipid.

However, the top several - the vote in the Clinton impeachment, the friendship with McCain, and the McCain Feingold vote - that is enough to tell me the nature and character or hte man.

I'll never vote for him. America cannot afford it.

If we don't have someone more determined to correct the damage already done than he is to "go along to get along" with the Dims, then America doesn't stand a chance anyway.
I won't waste the last vote - if that is inevitable - by rewarding some shmuck working hard TO MAKE the end of America come about.

So, we are still back down to the same basics we already knew;
He voted not guilty on Clinton's perjury charge, and in June '07 calls that perjury a "TRIVIAL MATTER" not rising to the level of impeachment;
Whitewater prosecutor protege of Howard Baker;
Best friend of McCain;
Worked McCain's 2000 Presidential Campaign as the Manager;
Supported, pushed, and voted for McCain Feingold, without regrets...

Plus the new revelation that Junior has been getting a $175,000 yearly salary for Pop's pac, in a NO-SHOW job - which won't influence anyone, one way or the other.

I'm going to be shocked if anyone trying to smear Fred comes up with anything substantial - if they had it, it would already be out, now. The rest of it is going to be attempting to commit a death by a thousand paper cuts. Very insipid.

However, the top several - the vote in the Clinton impeachment, the friendship with McCain, and the McCain Feingold vote - that is enough to tell me the nature and character or hte man.

I'll never vote for him. America cannot afford it.

If we don't have someone more determined to correct the damage already done than he is to "go along to get along" with the Dims, then America doesn't stand a chance anyway.
I won't waste the last vote - if that is inevitable - by rewarding some shmuck working hard TO MAKE the end of America come about.

OOPS! Sorry for the double post.

Usually I cut what is in the post box when I go back and refresh to see if the first post took, when it says that it did not - but this time I refreshed without cutting the contents of the post box - sorry.

Posted by: Rodney A Stanton at July 25, 2007 1:00 PM
************

You forgot that they have a good reason for going after him "as if he were the only one they are afraid of" - while the other GOP Candidates are busy trying to get their campaigns off the ground, Fred has been very busy writing a series of very stinging articles attacking the Dims.

And meanwhile, Ann gets more out of them with single sentences - so is SHE the only one they are "REALLY" terrified of???

Not hardly.

How ridiculous. I guess my question is when are we going to see the Post treat John Edwards like this.

Posted by: GinnyD at July 25, 2007 2:59 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&

Who needs to bother to treat the Silken Pony like a serious contender? He is a joke.

The best shot at him anyway is that he is dragging his wife on the campaign trail in a perfectly obviously lost cause, when he should be home with her and their children doing all they can for mother and child!

That fact is too glaring in itself to NEED to be said - and looking at it is like looking at a horrible trainwreck too up close and personal, like from the ambulance and hearse drivers' point of view.

Teresa said:

"I think Fred supporters are a little overly sensitive. Say what you will about the Post, but they are equally despised by the Left for running numerous stories about John Edward's hair cut, Hillary's cleavage, Obama wanting to teach sex ed to kindergardners, etc... This is part of what being a presidential candidate has to go through. "

Slight problem-none of those stories you cite have negatively impacted the candidates you name.

Contrast that with the WaPo's utter destruction of incumbent George Allen in the 2006 election. They turned a simply verbal gaffe into a manufactured story that cost the man the election.

I'm sure the people on the left "despise" the WaPo for doing that too...

I'm sorry, but you are not going to get a Republican president if you insist on every single issue being perfectly addressed by one person. Most of the country is tired, tired, tired of the culture wars. We have real wars to fight. Let's move on, please.

Posted by: Scott at July 25, 2007 3:37 PM
*******************************

HUGE amount of ground between "PERFECT" and someone who has some essential disrespect for the Constitution that will work out to be more beneficial to the short and long term goals of the Dims, the Socialistic goals of the Dims, than it will be to the GOP and the Conservative goals of bringing America back fromthe brink of its utter destruction at the hands of the Socialistic goals.

You got Rudi with no respect for an inconvenient ELECTION, or 2nd Amendment, or an inconvenient baby... etc etc etc....; former prosecutor Fred with no respect for Dim perjury, claiming the Founding Fathers aren't bothered by a little perjury among adulterous rapists, either; you got Mitt, deep in the bosom of the Kennedy machine, who enacted homosexual marraige in Mass. on a foundation which most politicians have ignored, before, being so highly opposed by the majority of citizens; McCain, the Dim enabler...

Those are not "less than perfect" candidates - those are fatally flawed candidates, for this particular time, which requires a man BORN FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS.

It's no time for a King Saul - it's a time for a Queen Esther, a Joshua, not for Korah or the man who took his mideanitish prostitute into the Temple inner court.

There was a Washington for his day, a Lincoln for his day, a Reagan for his day - and this is a day for a real man, a statesman - not a Carter, or a Ford, or a Dole, or a Clinton, or Boss Tweed and any of the inhabitants of Tammany Hall, either.

I'm in the "Let's see what happens" school here, but... Isn't what Fred Thompson did back then what lawyers do? If a lawyer cannot serve the interests of a client, no matter how diametrically opposite their beliefs systems are, then why waste the ink on a Bar license?

Here's another thing: we elect Presidents, not Messiahs. Some people seem to forget that it is never in our interests to make the prefect the enemy of the good.

Again, I'm just observing right now. I have not put my chips on anyone yet. But I do like Thompson. And Giuliani.

Del -- you say that none of the libs have been hurt by the Post's stories. I think you could certainly say that the hair stories have hurt Edwards. What does Rush call him? The Breck Girl? Those stories have been picked up by all the MSM and chortled over. I think they have helped to contribute -- fairly or unfairly -- to a narrative about Edward's that he is a "pretty boy."

As far as the George Allen story goes, you have to remember that the Post is essentially the local newspaper for northern Virginia and they were going to play that story like any local newspaper and pound it.

Besides their political coverage, you should also notice that the Post is hated on the left because of their unflinching support for the war in Iraq. Fred Hiatt -- the editor -- is reviled on the left due to his support for Bush & the war.

If someone has to ask what a certified conservative is then they wouldn't have a clue if you enlightened them. This nonsense that anyone is looking for the "perfect" candidate only highlights the lack of understanding the one making that assertion has.
Conservatives are not Republicans or Democrats they are conservatives. If perchance they happen to stand for certain political principles and are not willing to compromise for the sake of an election win that only strengthens them even if others are willing to win at any cost.
Goldwater and his supporters stood their ground and lost bad. That loss however paved the way for
eight years of Ronald Reagan.

Are we to take it that the Washington post supports laws that are so nebulous that a reasonable person cannot know for sure what actions are prohibited -- and which a prosecutor can therefore use to file criminal charges more or less at will?

Hey -- maybe we can get the Washington Post on an obscenity rap -- after all, those pictures of girls in bikinis in the Sears ad could be considered overly provocative by the local imam.

In the 1970s my bar association committee approved the submission of a appellate brief on Military Law on an issue with which I disagreed. I worked on the brief & put my name on it, along with others.

Put it on my tombstone.

It is a good thing we have you to certify conservatives for us edward cropper. Since when has judicial restraint or federalism been an un-conservative principle?

You don't like Fred Thompson. I get it. I'll add you to the Rose list as people I don't need to read because I already know what you're going to say on the subject. Don't feel bad, Hugh's on that list where it relates to John McCain.

WaPo and AP are never your friends. When you find yourself likeing what you read from them, it's time to check your hands and see if they have buckets in 'em.

I don't like McCain for the GOP ticket, but he's a good man, a bona fide hero and a man of personal integrity, and if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him because he is an infinity closer to my views than any of the Democrats. But what you and others are doing... to Fred, Rudy, Mitt and John are painting yourself into a corner where you're going to have to sit out the election or vote against your best interests because you've invested too much ego into tearing someone down. If you don't favor Fred, fine. Don't promote him. If you have a superior alternative, promote them. Keep your powder dry for the general where there will be an ideological foe to deal with.

Of course if you're a Democrat or one of those "staunch Republicans", then by all means, carry on and fire away.

Is any of this sinking in? Would you want to be complicit in helping a Democrat with whom you share two out of ten ideological perspectives get elected because you're unhappy with the Republican candidate with whom you share seven? If you are waiting for your ideological prince charming edward and rose, then I hope you weren't planning on riding that carriage back after the ball.

"The Next Fred Smear?"

I've mocked the Thompsonistas more than once for their excessive defensiveness with respect to Fred's rather thin resume ... but now, apparently, if any of Thompson's actual legal filings are even made publicly available with no comment - as the Captain whines about on his post - that is supposed to constitute a "smear"? Just what are we voters supposed to do, people, in order to evaluate this man who would be President? This man who years ago spent a grand total of 1 and 1/3 terms as an unremarkable Senator from Tennessee, sandwiched fore and aft by acting gigs in a handful of movies and a couple of TV series ... and his Senate "career" (if you can call it that) contained only two noteworthy actions: 1) he voted to let Bill Clinton off the hook on one of the two impeachment charges, and 2) he was McCain's chief Republican co-sponsor on the infamous McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform".

With so little to go on in evaluating Thompson's fitness to be Commander in Chief (other than one gig in a non-Academy Award-winning movie in which he played an obviously too-old Captain of a US Navy aircraft carrier), then one should not be surprised that every other little piece of paper trail in the universe that is connected with the man is going to end up being posted on the net and gone over with fine-toothed comb.

And if Fred Thompson, and his merry band of Thompsonistas like the Captain cannot stand that kind of scrutiny now, just how the heck are they going to make through a general election campaign against Her Evil Thighness?

Thompson's inexperience and unreadiness for Prime Time are already getting to be all too evident.

I dunno, it seems like the Fred Thompson for President! campaign over the last couple of months has consisted almost entirely of the candidate and his supporters whining about the scrutiny of his rather slight record of achievement, and then this week, it's morphed into a game of musical chairs involving the non-campaign campaign staff.

Doesn't exactly inspire firm confidence in the Next Leader of the Free World, does it?

Privately, his advisers said they are acutely aware that GOP opponents could try to paint Thompson as too liberal, based on his legal work, his support from the trial lawyers' lobby and his votes on liability legislation that conflicted with those of most Republicans.

It's eay to see why Thompson hasn't declared as a candidate yet. Thompson couldn't buy stuff like this.

Will the WaPo closely examine the work of Hillarious and O-bbbb-ama?

Its remarkable the efforts the mobys are putting into smearing Thompson. I guess its because they realize how poorly the dhimmiecrats candidates appear in comparison with Thompson. Who could imagine Thompson standing beside Michael Moore or Al Sharpton? Who could imagine Thompson saying he wants no part "of an ownership society?"

And we all know the balanced reporting from the Washington Post which last endorsed a Republican in ............... Let Rose and the other Mobys inform us when the WaPo examined Kerry's claims to military fame or why they haven't reported the Hildabeast (the best and brightest) couldn't pass the Washington bar and served on WalMart's board becauyse of slick willie occupying the governor's mansion. The gall.

There is no middle in American politics except for road kill. Someone should explain what the middle is on capital punishment; abortion; school vouchers; foreign aid; illegal aliens.

The Morlocks would have us believe that the GOP must put up a candidate without principles and willing to negotiate (just like Clinton did) to win. Right.

If the GOP selects Thompson it will win by a strong margain because it will offer a clear choice. If it selects someone who does not have the trust and does not have the redord they will lose. Because no one can match the dhimmierats in lying and promising to loot the treasury in order to reward Paul at Peter's expense.

If you don't know what a conservative is you must be a RINO or worse a dhimmierat. This explains the moby posts here.

AGITPROP WARNING!

FRED THOMPSON HIT PIECES ARE COORDINATED ATTACKS BY LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS TO ERODE SUPPORT FOR THOMPSON AMONGST REPUBLICAN VOTERS.

Don't fall for it people!

Visit a couple of news sites and/or conservative blogs and look at the comments sections of articles/posts regarding Fred Thompson. You'll immediately notice that the majority of people who are denouncing Thompson fall into 2 camps:

1) Self-avowed liberals stating that "conservatives" who support Thompson are 1) "hypocrites", 2) "neo-cons", or 3) "not real conservatives".
2) Self-avowed conservatives stating that "as a true conservative, I'll never vote for Thompson because of A, B, C..."

The obvious consistency in tone in these comment sections implies that a coordinated effort by liberals/Democrats is underway to destroy support for a Thompson candidacy.

Why is all of this effort being put into undermining someone who hasn't even officially joined the race yet? It's very simple...they're scared to death of him getting the Republican nomination because they know that the hopes of a Democrat presidential candidate being elected hinges on one region of the US - the South.

Here are the numbers for the last 30 years:

2004 - John Kerry - 0 Southern states - lost
2000 - Al Gore - 0 Southern states - lost
1996 - Bill Clinton - 5 Southern states - won
1992 - Bill Clinton - 5 Southern states - won
1988 - Mike Dukakis - 0 Southern states - lost
1984 - Walter Mondale - 0 Southern states - lost
1980 - Jimmy Carter - 1 Southern state - lost
1976 - Jimmy Carter - 11 Southern states - won

In order for a Democrat to win the presidency, they have to win in at least a couple of Southern states. If they can't do that, they can't win. Period.

The Democrat nominee is going to be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The Republican nominee is going to be either Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson. Now ask yourself, of the 3 Republicans, who can you see winning the most Southern states? And by way of winning those states, limiting the number of states the Democrat candidate can win? The answer is simple: Thompson.

Any Republican presidential candidate is going to do well in the South, but doing "well" is not enough...they need to be strong in the South.

Guiliani will do well in the South, but he could easily lose in 3-4 Southern states due to his rather liberal views on a number of topics. Romney, I think, would do better than Guiliani, but I still think that he could lose 2-4 Southern states due to his being Mormon, he's less recognizable, and his contradictory positions over the years may hurt him.

And the biggest negative of all for Rudy and Mitt - neither of them are Southerners!

Thompson, on the other hand, is the epitome of the "Southern gentleman". If he gets the nomination, he could very well win every single Southern state! And that fact would make a Democrat victory much more difficult, if not flat-out impossible.

And liberals/Democrats know it...and it's scaring them to death!

Don't think for a second that this isn't a coordinated attack on Thompson. And the best way to counter it is with a coordinated effort to expose what they're trying to do. Therefore, to offset the effects of this obvious smear campaign, I will be reposting this to the comments section of every major news site and conservative blog where I run across this liberal/Democrat smear campaign. And I will be doing so until Fred Thompson either drops out of the campaign, loses the nomination, or loses the election. Please be sure to do the same - or feel free to copy-n-paste this post - at any site where you come across the same propaganda campaign.

And don't let up...because I guarantee you they won't!