September 11, 2007

Was Thompson In Unforgiven?

If not, he's doing a pretty good impression of it on the campaign trail today. After Mitt Romney attempted to distance himself from the Phoney Fred website, Thompson blasted Romney in no uncertain terms. Romney's team says 9/11 should be a day free from political consequences:

The statement from Todd Harris, communications director for Fred Thompson, accuses Mitt Romney's campaign of a "half-baked cover-up" of what he alleges is the association between a Romney consultant and a hastily pulled website that said nasty things about Thompson.

Harris concluded with the kind of rhetoric that tends to warm Democratic hearts: "This latest episode only serves to prove what many voters are already figuring out: Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win. The American people in general and the Republican Party in particular deserve better than this."

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden's response: "We had no knowledge of the development or administration of this site. We also disapprove of the site and have made it very clear that the site does not have an affiliation with our campaign." Madden also said: "Today is a day of remembrance, and should be a day without political statements or attacks on opposing campaigns."

Well, the Romney campaign felt comfortable enough today to send out their e-mails distancing themselves from the website earlier today. If they expected the Thompson campaign to hold its fire for a full day after failing to offer an apology, they obviously underestimated the response time of the Thompson team. Other campaigns will not make the same underestimation in the future.

The Thompson response has speed on its side, but perhaps a little more vitriol than necessary at this stage. It's disappointing, as I noted in my update to yesterday's post, that Romney did not apologize for the actions of the consultants he hired for his campaign; he has to take responsibility for their work, whether those decisions got personally approved by Romney or not. If a candidate tries to avoid taking responsibility for these kinds of poorly-hidden attacks during the campaign, we will not likely see a "buck stops here" attitude once elected.

However, the personal nature of the criticism on Mitt Romney himself only extends the damage to the Republican brand and creates hard feelings and divisions among voters that we frankly do not need. Regardless of who wins the nomination, we need all of the candidates as credible advocates for the Republican ticket. That could still include Romney, and if it does, the allegation that he will "smear any opponent and flip flop on any position" won't help his credibility. And if Thompson wins the nomination, Romney could help Thompson in his general election effort against Hillary Clinton.

This used to be common wisdom in presidential politics. It's good to see Thompson fully engaged, and a shot at Romney's team was justified. Let's remember, though, that we want to hear more about how our candidates will govern than character attacks, even when provoked.

UPDATE: The Palmetto Scoop has more.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Was Thompson In Unforgiven?:

» Fred Thompson Watch: Fred Strikes Romney on “Half-Baked Cover-Up from FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson makes a campaign stop in Greenville, S.C., Monday, Sept. 10, 2007. Flap said the Thompson campaign would NOT be letting the flap go. Thompson aide: Romney will ‘do anything, say ... [Read More]

Comments (34)

Posted by Mr. Michael | September 11, 2007 7:33 PM

I don't know if an apology is needed here... it would be gracious, but if Candidates start apologizing for stuff they did not do, would not do, told people to stop and condemned it in no uncertain terms with NO delay... goodness, it would deflate the value of ALL apologies.

I mean, if apologies become common and cheap, what kind of recourse are you going to demand when the Campaign DOES screw up... and it's gonna happen to all of 'em.

Fred handled it correctly, even if you are a tad sharp, this kind of site needs to be SLAPPED down, and hard. Now, Fred can offer the apology to Mitt, and come out looking even better... and he DID do something that can be apologized for.

Mitt on the other hand, doesn't have to. The folks who made the site, hosted the server, and whatnot... THEY need to apologize. And the Romney Campaign needs to fire any firm that does not even know what is on their own servers... pronto!

Posted by Carol Herman | September 11, 2007 7:39 PM

Good for Fred!

Mitt and Obama both want 9/11 "free of politics." As long as they faces end up on the news.

Gotta tell ya, though. It's today's Drudge report that's messed me up, real good. He's running with Pelosi. And, it seems Bush is playing her game.

I know. I know. Poker. No tells.

And, with the boost in troops to 210,000 by October; Bush has left himself with a pile of chips, so he can toss a few into the pot. Long before anyone "folds."

But I am so distressed!

Oh, I know I should tie a seatbelt to my chair; so I don't fall out. But Bush is used to this stuff. And, no matter how often I see it pulled, I. AM. NOT.

Beldar is a site worthy of the visit. He covers, from a legal standpoint, what can happen to Wide Stance Larry, ahead; now that the court has allowed him to withdraw his plea.

But even better. He's got a great rememberance up to 9/11.

And, he's written about the stuff of Fred Thompson's critics, saying he's inexperienced. "Like a player who danced for a contract," and didn't go to "camp" while others were training. True? Or not. I dunno what happens to football players missing training.

But I'm not missing the arguments that are surrounding politics.

While I'm sure Bush expects Pelosi to end up falling on her face.

It hurts like all get-out to see these stunts, pulled by the senators; against Petraeus.

Okay. Sometimes it pays to guess.

Mitt Romney has played the "dirty card" to his detriment. Wasn't looking to vote for him, anyway.

Petraeus has worked magic with more than 50% of the American voting public. We're not gonna cut and run out of Irak.

And, I still don't think Bush will pull his punches with iran. Well, it's like the theater. The best know how to time their entrances on stage for the best effects.

And, today? Well, William Teach's absolutely excellent link to U-Tube hit the spot.

Laughing helps.

And, the Internet brings peace. Among all the other wonderful stuff.

Posted by charles | September 11, 2007 7:56 PM

I generally expect more of you. Why is it a necessity that Romney apologize for the work of someone who does NOT work for his campaign?

And how does correcting factual errors on 9/11 equate to running an attack on an opponent on 9/11?

When I read the first part of this post, I thought you were actually going to fault Fred's group for over-playing their hand, and on 9/11 no less.

Instead, you took a different and less logical tack.

I suppose if you simply don't believe Romney, then nothing he says will change your mind, but what he is saying is consistent with the facts, and there's no evidence he isn't telling the truth.

And if he is telling the truth, asking for an apology for people outside of Mitt's control is inappropriate, and calling him a liar like Fred's team did is inappropriate.

I thought the Thompson campaign played this pretty well yesterday, but now they are sounding like whiners who can't take the political heat -- something I'm certain Fred Thompson would not condone.

Meanwhile, Mitt is managing , with the Thompson Campaign help, to turn what was an embarrassment for him into something that reflects poorly on his opponents. He comes across as a man who sincerely was upset by the actions of a non-affiliated person, who took steps to correct the problem, who quickly acted and denounced the action, and is now being unfairly attacked.

Of course, Rudy Giuliani was attacked by the BloggersForFredThompson for this same action before they knew the truth, I haven't checked for an update but as of noon today the BLogsForFred site had not issued an apology for their false accusation.

And now it seems Fred's campaign might need to apologize for falsely accusing Romney of personal knowledge of the same action.

I liked Fred because I was hoping he'd be a different kind of politician, but so far this past week hasn't endeared me to his 'brand' of politics. And I sent him money when he first opened his web site last month.

Posted by Scott | September 11, 2007 8:15 PM

Charles, the web site was managed by a Romney operative: see Captain's original post on this.

"...a series of inquiries leads directly to the website of Under the Power Lines, the political consulting firm of Warren Tompkins, Romney's lead consultant in South Carolina."

Romney's protestations of ignorance may be sincere, in a Clintonesqe kind of "don't tell me what you're doing." The Romney camp has been using proxies to use the lowest type of campaigning: his slutty wife, he's dying of cancer, his brown Guccis, and oh yes, lazy and stupid. Some of these proxies are reliable conservatives in most other respects, but they fully understand negative campaigning and have been using it as much as possible.

It's about dadgum #$***#@^&% time somebody called Romney on it.

Oh, yeah. There was a break in at the Romney headquarters and laptops were stolen. Before anyone got the bright idea to look for the code that showed up on Coincidence? Oh, I'm so sure.

Captain, I think you are being too kind to Romney. His camp has been spreading dirt before Fred started campaigning. This was a well aimed shot across the bow of Tugboat Romney.

Posted by Rose | September 11, 2007 8:32 PM

Phooey on Fred! Drudge Report is saying Fred scolds Hillary, "Didn't they learn their lesson with Charlie Tries?"

SO PHRRYQUEING BARPHING! Fred to Hillary: Didn't you learn anything from Charlie Trie?

Rival charges Hillary Clinton turned blind eye to Hsu's past
3 hrs ago » Rival charges Hillary Clinton turned blind eye to Hsu's past «
Sep 11, 2007 5:15 PM (3 hrs ago)
by Bill Sammon, The Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Hillary Clinton's links to illegal fundraising by Asian-Americans in 1996 should have made her wary of accepting $850,000 from a fugitive Asian-American this year, a rival presidential campaign said Tuesday.

The criticism came from an adviser to former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson, who chaired a Senate investigation into illegal contributions by Asian-Americans to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign and the couple's legal defense fund in the 1996 election cycle.

The reason I am so phrryqueing fed up with the GOP is because they don't STOP this baloney - THEY ENABLE it!

One lady I know used to say of people doing really horrible things: "YUCK YUCK YUCK!!! SAY 'YUCK' THREE TIMES!!!"

He was once in a position to do something about it - and opted to be "BI-PARTISAN", instead!

Just simply SO BARFING!

Posted by Edward Cropper | September 11, 2007 8:49 PM

you're beginning to sound like a Thompson apologists.
He and Mitt are both lacking in genuine conservative credentials, and generate serious questions about their positions.
Duncan Hunter showed real character & class when he defended General Petraeus, he is solid as a rock on foreign affairs and amnesty
yet his numbers do not move a bit in the polls .Which speaks volumes about the Republican party.
Fear and dread are overwhelming republicans and they are getting ready to fall for the first pretty face that comes along.

Posted by dhunter | September 11, 2007 8:53 PM

I'm still looking for the Republican to stand up for himself and his country and perhaps Fred is The Man. Unfortunately he unloaded on a fellow Rep. but looks like Romney camp had it coming but good . Now quit wasting powder on the Reps. and go after the Jackasses after all it's Hitlery and the Dems trying to sell this country out to the highest bidder just to gain power.
I will vote for the Rep. that shows the intestinal fortitude to bi--- slap the witch when she so obviously has it coming. Pointing out the Chinese money laundry connection is a good start.
The press will NEVER ask her a tough question so someone had better find their balls and take her on or be willing to settle for second place in a two MAN race.

Posted by nate | September 11, 2007 9:28 PM

Why do we shoot each other in the back while the democrats build a campaign for the White House? Fred's team did over react. It reminded me of Brownback demanding an apology from Huckabee for his supporter's email. Get over it. The site was up for less than a day, how much damage did it do?

Posted by RKV | September 11, 2007 9:30 PM

"Thompson apologists. He and Mitt are both lacking in genuine conservative credentials"

My BS meter is pegged.

Thomson's lifetime ACU rating is 86. That's not liberal, and about in the middle of the pack of sitting Republican Senators. Considering what it takes to get elected to the Presidency, that's quite enough for me. And yes there are several other candidates with higher ratings. The bad news is that they couldn't win the general election and we'd get Her Thighness. Fume and get angry all you want, but that's the way it is.

Posted by robert | September 11, 2007 9:45 PM

yeah it's unfortunate how both sides are goin back and forth. i esp. didn't like thompson's campaign's attack. romney's side cleared up the issue and i am satisfied w/ that.

scott, you're wrong. romney's guy tompkins knew nothing of the website. this is what romney's campaign's email said:

"The site has no direct affiliation to our campaign, and we had no knowledge of its development.

"Once we received inquiries about the site, we discovered it was created by an individual who parked the site temporarily on the company server space of a firm whose financial partner is a consultant to the campaign-
Mr. Tompkins. Mr. Tompkins also had absolutely no knowledge about the development of the site or that it was temporarily parked on the firm's server.

"We informed this party that as a result of that server use, we were receiving inquires about the site. We made it clear that we did not approve of the site and asked for immediate action to make sure it was again in no way affiliated with the campaign.

"The person responsible is not an employee of ours, but we took immediate action to make sure it was clear the site was not affiliated with the campaign."

romney has no reason to apologize, and he and his ppl weren't playing dirty politics. they like to point out their opponents' deficiencies, but they usu do it in a respectable manner.

best wishes

Posted by dirL | September 11, 2007 10:00 PM

You guys who think Romney's crew did not have anything to do with this are delusional. Have you heard Romney's attack dog Hugh Hewitt spout off about Thompson being a cancer ridden southerner, all the while saying he hasn't chosen a candidate yet? Get Real. This is becoming a theme -have your dogs attack other people and keep them at arms length so you can plausibly deny it when it blows up in your face. Anyone who can not read these tea leaves needs glasses.

Posted by Edward Cropper | September 11, 2007 10:28 PM

Conservative credentials are not determined by ACU
ratings, they are determined by how you vote when controversial conservative chips are on the table.
Here are life time ratings for some repubs.
MaCain-83, Kyl-97, Martinez-96, Craig-94
Lugar-79, Brownback-95, McConnell-90, Lott-93,
Graham-91 They all supported amnesty.

Posted by RightPhalanx | September 11, 2007 10:52 PM

Fred Thompson did not blast Romney himself. He had to have one of his aides do the blasting for him. Apparently the parody site hit a raw nerve because the man surely overreacted!

The response coming from the Thompson camp was low class and childish. They lost the moral high ground.

Thompson will fade away at a quickening pace now. There are no more cards up his sleeve. No more media tricks. All that remains is the boredom of a gaffe prone and unprofessional campaign. I went to one of his events in New Hampshire and noticed that people were much more excited on the way in than on the way out. The Magic is gone. Time is running out.

Posted by M. Loomer | September 11, 2007 11:14 PM


When you are the leader, you are responsible for the actions of your command. If someone on Rommey's team pulled the stunt, then guess what, it might as well come directly from the man himself. As to Thompson's response, don't go getting soft on the process of holding people responsible. We need someone to tell it like it is, the raw truth and it certainly seems as if Mr. Thompson is the only one in the Conservative pack with a chance of winning who does. If Fred get the nod for the show next November, Rommney supporters will be there. They are not mind-numbed robots like the American hating Left or hand wringing squishy Moderates. Next payday, Mr. T. is getting some of my hard earned cash. And thanks for all your great work, you are my first read everyday.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 11, 2007 11:28 PM

Fred's in this thing two days, and already he's ahead of the pack, slugging it out on his terms.

Even if Rose barfs, so what? Given how many candidates are on the nomination stage, there's gonna be disappointment in the audience. Just like at horse races; when the winnah is announced. And, fools who are now departed from their money; rip their tickets up and throw around the paper like confetti.

It's a much better show if you leave it up to the people on the nomination stage, "to take care of business."

Meanwhile, up at Lucianne, is an article where Fred says "he doesn't belong to a church." Which means he's not going to be out there, wearing religion as if it's an American necessity when you're running for office.

Lucianne's quite the right winger's site; so of course you hear splashing sounds, as those that pick according to this reference, have already jumped overboard. Into the water. Whatever.

How do we know politics change? Same way we know fashions change. SO we don't see men making the mistake of taking out their old Nehru suits from the closet.

And, in politics? Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson are running towards the center. And, Fred's taken on Hillary. I think he did a great pounce, reminding her before Hsu, she had these troubles with Charlie Trie. His question: "Didn't you learn not to do this stuff, already?"

Today, the left thought they sunk their teeth into Petraeus. While I hope our President adds another ribbon to Patraeus' chest. Just for remaining cool and polite, while surrounded by jackels from both parties.

Heck, isn't there an award for a man whose as brave as Petraus was, taking enemy fire?

And, then, of course, there's the public at large. Sometimes, in our history, people really tuned in when the senate held hearings. You bet. I remember those hearings when Nixon's career was on the line. (And, I also heard women complaining that their favorite soaps got bounced.)

The Internet, today, increased the size of the audience. And, then, I realize, to win, all you need is a little bit over 50%.

How did Code Pink do this for the Bonkeys?

What if, up ahead, we're gonna see "shows" that makes many of us angry?

Fred, by the way, hasn't made me angry at all. Yeah. I'm still a Guiliani fan.

But I see the mix getting better.

By the way, in this altercation? Mitt's the one who lost points. Worse, the campaign he's running is rather clueless about the Net. And, the components of the various audiences you want to reach. What kinds of crowds was he hoping to reach with "phoneyFred." When phony got mispelled?

You want to know something? You can mismanage your campaign faster, and in more ruinous ways, than waiting for your opponent to misspeak.

Posted by Exurban Jon | September 12, 2007 12:05 AM


Obviously, Mitt doesn't believe that Thompson is dead in the water. Otherwise, he wouldn't have astroturfed this ugly smear site, not to mention Hugh Hewitt's shocking "Cancer survivors need not apply" attack of last week.

I'm not even a Fredhead, but so far this month, Thompson's arrow has gone way up and Romney's way, way down.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 12, 2007 12:29 AM

Wait. Drudge reports that "Wide Stance Larry" had a judge approve his plea withdrawal.

And, Romney had Larry Craig in his 2nd spot, on his campaign.

Sure. He got rid of Larry Craig in a hurry. But it seems Larry's not exactly "resigned from the senate." That "intent" is still hinged out there.

As we get to argue "hand-signals."

Meanwhile, in a completely other sport; the Patriots were found to have a cameraman on the Jet's coaches in the last game. And, they got caught "video-taping" ... hand signals.

For the republicans? It's not smooth sailing, ahead, but very rough waters.

That Romney can dish it out? For some politicians this stuff works, great.

Abraham Licoln, however, when he was back in 4th place, did something none of his opponents did. He didn't insult any of them.

But then Lincoln actually lived the addage: MALICE TOWARDS NONE.

One of the hardest goals to achieve is to hold back on those mischievious words.

The other thing that's telling, in the elections coming up in '08; is that they'll be pivotal. Sure, we can stay locked in this insane 51-49 almost a tie, in search of a tie breaker.

OR? We can find out when the People, themselves, really don't want to participate in these war games.

Little Green Footballs, had a spread up on its site yesterday; about a poorly attended "troofer" rally up in San Francisco.

Similar to when Code Pink couldn't pull a crowd, out, complaining in front of Barbara Boxer's house.

We have less weirdos? Or just less people willing to attend these parades? Food's served, ya know. They're held in parks. They've got the gigantic puppets. In what once passed as a "love fest."

Where did all the people go?

Have you noticed a strange silence? Where people you know are on the left, hardly raising their voices anymore. The whole Bush, Hilter, Halliburton, schtick seems to have gone "old hat."

In 2008, when the decisions come in, will we see candidates willing to sound MAINSTREAM? Willing to challenge the "old time religion?"

Jury's out.

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | September 12, 2007 12:38 AM

I don't see any justification in any of it.

Thompson looks boorish in response, and the Romney team is attributed with a poor association.

Although it is clear many will try to blame Romney unfairly, as we see the bias against this fine Man is rampant.

But these things only distract from the Candidates records, experience, and performance.

Right now, the Captain included, a number have given Fred Thompson's weak Moderate record in the Senate, which mimics McCain a complete pass.

The man has no CEO experience, and even a short term in Office, won with the help of an incredibly wealthy ex-Wife.

What about his long history of Lobby Work in Washington?

Fred Thompson is a moderate Beltway insider, who was a Senator, and is now speaking of 'coming together'.

That should concern any Conservative.

Senator's are at the rock bottom of any list, and Lobbyists even further down.

But one with a McCain like record is simply not ready to take the 'Conservative Champion' mantle.

Credibility will suffer, pushing someone as something they are not.

Posted by firedup | September 12, 2007 1:02 AM

The truth of the matter is that Thompson is and has been playing gutter politics. That's his style, so get used to it everybody.

Giuliani already had a bitter taste of it, and now Romney gets his.

If I were Mitt, I would be steamed. But he won't be able to get down to Fred's level.

FDT has Mary Matalin advising him, remember?
Thaaaat's right, ol' Snake Head's bed buddy...

Fred's game is a matter of whether he actually gets caught doing his dirty deeds. You see Larry Craig trying to get out of his... hey, it's worth a shot, huh?

Of course, when your EGO is so gigantic it can't even wait for the 24 hours of September 11 to pass, let the mud fly and tell it to the judge.

Meanwhile, the Fredster turned down Mike Huckabee's invitation to debate .... in the style which Fred said on the Leno show that he supports. Hahahaha.

Posted by Rose | September 12, 2007 1:17 AM

Now quit wasting powder on the Reps. and go after the Jackasses after all it's Hitlery and the Dems trying to sell this country out to the highest bidder just to gain power.

When you show us RINO Reps who will move America as far left as any DIM, they are equally fair game for our powder!


Fred is a DIM ENABLER. PHOOEY on him!

Remember Gerald Ford and Robert Dole!

Posted by Rose | September 12, 2007 1:19 AM

My BS meter is pegged.

Thomson's lifetime ACU rating is 86.

Pardon me, but that is the same as McCain's isn't it?


Posted by Rose | September 12, 2007 1:26 AM

The bad news is that they couldn't win the general election and we'd get Her Thighness. Fume and get angry all you want, but that's the way it is.

We've been screaming at you we will NOT vote for the RINOS - and you tell us TOUGH SNOT, and plan to vote for them anyway - "CALLING THEM ELECTABLE" ~~~

When you lose, remember, we tried to sell you guys some decent men and you refused, because your eyes were filled with STARS.

ENJOY YOUR FIX of "celebrity idolization".

Since you were WELL WARNED, don't come crying to us when your "ELECTABLE PERSON" comes up SHORT because you guys slapped the real Conservatives around til we did NOT vote GOP this season!

I've got a nice list of WRITE-INS ready to meet your insanity.

No, my guy won't win - but I won't have to apologize to God when I try to gain entry into Heaven, either. I won't violate my conscience for any of these RINOS, since they are NOT better than Thunder Thighs!

Posted by Rose | September 12, 2007 2:09 AM


My, how things change.

Posted by KJBtruth | September 12, 2007 2:16 AM

Well, here's the deal. I think that a common Mistake many folks make where it concerns Southerners in general, and is that slow talking is somehow synonymous slow-witted.

First, the Romney folks didn't think they would get caught, and second Romney himself should have immediately stepped up and taken control of this ugly situation.

That's what a leader does.

Like Fred Thompson has said before, every election he has been in, he 's won.

It ain't cause he's slow.

Posted by KJBtruth | September 12, 2007 2:35 AM

Actually I just went back through these posts, and the folks defending Romney sound quite irrational.

This site was setup not by some minor part-time flunky but by Warren Thompkins. He is a paid political assassin, and is no small fish.He was the main guy down there. This smacks of Clintonism and everything that's wrong with politics.

Romney personally hired this guy, and turned him loose in SC. To suggest that Romney has no knowledge is absurd. He knew, and now he regrets it. The difference is that is that IF he were a conservative, he would take responsibility for the actions of one of his main managers.

Posted by Rose | September 12, 2007 2:58 AM

When I barf, then those millions who refused to vote for Robert Dole and Gerald Ford are also barfing - AND NOT VOTING!
I'm not a leader - just a weather vane!

Slap us down, fine - but don't complain to us when your pet isn't as dazzling in the GENERAL election as you think he should.

Here is the problem for the Moderates - they'll have an easy time at the PRIMARIES - the Conservatives go to the PRIMARY polls at 1/4 of their weight - and about 1/2 their weight goes to the General Election - except for a Ronald Reagan.

Now, a lot of these RINOS are claiming the Reagan mantle - but you ain't seeing US bow down for THAT garbage - QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

Lots say they won't vote - period.

I seem to be rare - threatening to vote for a WRITE-IN. I want those county and district and state clerks to have to notice EACH vote for a WRITE-IN, from an unhappy Conservative the RINO GOP didn't listen to.

We all know who they will BLAME for a failure to win. Yet which of them is supporting a turn towards a candidate THEY KNOW WE WOULD BE THRILLED TO SUPPORT!

No, they will use their power at the Primary to select someone THEY KNOW WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR.

And then blame us for not turning out for THEM in the General Election.

But they are not planning on picking someone to please us.

Old Jewish Marriage Covenant - the prospective groom has decided who he likes, and consults with his Dad. The young man writes a Marriage COVENANT - NOT a CONTRACT - and they make an appointment to go offer it to the young lady in question.
(If she "goes for it", this meeting will be the BETROTHAL CEREMONY, and they are "good as married" when the Marriage COVENANT is signed.)

The meeting is set, and she will have a table for the signing, a lamp trimmed and filled with oil, and a Wedding Cake and their very very very best wine on hand. And assorted guests.

When the young man comes, he will present the Covenant to the young lady's father, and he will read it. IF he approves it, he will hand it to her. She will then read it herself, and if SHE approves it, she will sign it, and light the lamp - they are then BETROTHED - it is COVENANT it is A DONE DEAL!

Now, anyone not approving up til now, things go another way - but this is the issue ALONE that I am dealing with in this issue of the GOP Primary Election...

The young man writes the Covenant alone, it is his bargain with her, and is between him and her alone, save the approval of their fathers. It includes all he promises to do for her, all he expects her to promise to him, and if she signs it, she is so promising, and all the benefits he will give to h er, and what he ex pects from her - and the Curses. This is called 1. Terms; 2. Blessings; 3. Cursings - the 3 components of a Covenant - tons more on that - but not my point.

The thing is - HE writes the Covenant and SHE HAS NO INPUT in the COMPOSITION of it.
If she loves him dearly, but he offers an unacceptable Covenant, she is NOT ALLOWED to say, well, gee, Honey, I'd love to, but could you make this little change, first? She has one of two options, if she signs, she is agreeing to all the terms unconditionally and she can make no bargains with him for changes THEN or LATER - PERIOD.
If she refuses, the option may possibly be there for him to decide how bad he wants her, and whether he has irreparably insulted her by not offering an enticing enough Covenant.


Now, she may want him bad enough to let him get by with going home and writing a new Covenant and trying again - or she might decide he was so insulting with the previous offer that he would make her the laughing stock of all her family and friends if she were to reconsider him.

I've lost 95% of you in this post a long time ago, I know.

My point is that we KNOW the Conservatives and Christians aren't going to show up at the PRIMARY to "fight" for TERMS. Sure, that is wrong - but it is a fact.

Some few more voices are out there trying to convince them to be sure and go to the Primary - but the fact is, it will be a genuine miracle if they do in fact turn out.

Therefore, I am appealing to the MODERATES to decide WHEN THEY VOTE IN THE PRIMARY whether they want the Conservative vote in the General Election, or not. Are you going to craft an enticement to the voters in the General - or simply demand your own way!

So far, ever since Dah Ahnold Man ran for California Governor, the Moderates are telling us to go jump in a lake.

The Dims can afford to tell us that, they know we ain't going to THEIR party ANYWAY, NO HOW, NO WAY!

If the Moderates VOTE IN THE PRIMARY - crafting their INVITATION TO THE GOP POTENTIAL VOTER POOL WITH THEIR VOTE IN THE PRIMARY - and deliberately pick someone they know they cannot SELL to the Conservative end of the voting pool, KNOWING WHAT THE VOTING POOL IS SHOPPING FOR - then they have left themselves with no excuse for trying to blame the voting pool for not coming to their table for the signing party.

The FACT is that when faced with BILL CLINTON, Robert Dole didn't entice them at all, when faced with JIMMY CARTER, we CONSERVATIVES voted for Jimmy instead of for Gerald Ford.

Be very careful with what you challenge us with, and be sure that your premise is something WE AGREE WITH - because when you tell us that Fred is better than Hillary - some of us don't believe you.
And further more, we feel that if you are willing to force that choice on us, then you must be willing to accept the PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES.

Just a friendly warning - because I guarantee you that the young man taking a Covenant to the lady he is courting does not DARE hand her an inferior and insulting Covenant and then tell her she best take it and like it, because she cannot do better than that! Because if SHE is worth having at all, she won't take that garbage from him!

Amazing to me how many of you Moderates think Bush isn't acceptable, but you are furious with us Conservatives who refuse to vote to the Left of Bush!

Posted by Rose | September 12, 2007 3:09 AM

Like Fred Thompson has said before, every election he has been in, he 's won.

It ain't cause he's slow.


And just how many elections was that?

If he ain't slow (I'm from TEXAS!), why'd he be campaign manager for McCain's Presidential Campaign 2000 (AND LOSE THAT ELECTION!) and why'd he be one of 4 GOP SENATORS to vote NOT GUILTY on BILL CLINTON'S PERJURY - JUST WHAT KIND OF UNITY IS HE GOING FOR, THERE??? - and then THIS VERY JUNE 5, 2007, CALL THAT PERJURY A "TRIVIAL MATTER" and one not rising to the level of IMPEACHMENT in the eyes of our FOUNDING FATHERS - and now turn around and chastize Hillary for not learning her lessons from Charlie tries - which investigation Fred sat on in '06 - CHASTIZING THE FOLKS FRED HIMSELF ENABLED WHILE AMERICA WAS SCREAMING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.


He cannot get my vote, and I've already converted a number of people who had been considering him - and it didn't take much - 5 minutes - long enough to tell them this Watergate Prosecutor voted NOT GUILTY and called that BC perjury a "TRIVIAL MATTER", "Founding Fathers", McCain butt buddy, etc...

Call him what you will, he calls himself the New Reagan - I call him another ROBERT DOLE/GERALD FORD.

Don't worry, I ain't gonna vote for Mitt, either, nor Rudi.

Posted by Scott | September 12, 2007 8:05 AM

The return of the old double standard.


Let me make sure I understand this: the Fred campaign lost the high moral ground because of his campaign complained about a Romney smear job? But apparently a Romney smear job HOLDS the high moral ground.

I see how that works. If you turn your head about 43 degrees and squint real hard with your eyes out of focus, look, it's the Romney showing up out of the dots. Yeah, I see it now. And that big arrow pointing up at Rasmusssen, with 28% for Fred (up from 20%), and the little arrow pointing down at 12% for Romney(down actually from 15% after his AMAZING victory at Ames). Say anything.

FYI, Romney also slandered Reagan, calling him a pro-abortionist. Again, say anything.

brookly-hnav, I think you have confused Thompson's wife for Theresa. This is the 2008 election, not the 2004 election. And Romney is such a fine man, letting his minions get their hands dirty while he remains above the fray. How noble. How Clintonesqe.

Posted by goldwater | September 12, 2007 9:08 AM

Fred Thompson



(I am sure he will be more civil and "uniting" with the Democrats who attack his wife and his children later on in the campaign)

Posted by KJBtruth | September 12, 2007 9:21 AM


First you are mistaken about Thompson being McCain's campaign manager in 2000. That was Rick Davis.

Or maybe you aren't wrong, but attempting to smear??

Fred Thompson had a long history as a defense lawyer and prosecutor before getting into politics. He has always been a man guided by his own principles and not by political expediency.

When elected to the Senate he told the voters of Tennessee he believed in term limits, and after two terms, he left. He would have easily been re-elected.

Ask the people of Tennessee how they feel about Fred Thompson. They will tell you with their vote.

Posted by The Yell | September 12, 2007 10:39 AM

"This latest episode only serves to prove what many voters are already figuring out: Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win. The American people in general and the Republican Party in particular deserve better than this."

That's gutter politics? That's a smear? Please! That's going to be tossed at EVERY candidate in this election and they better have a better response than a Daschlesque ""

Romney and Thompson are going to have a phone call and come out smiling and promising not to let the sincere zeal of staffers get in the way of policy--because that's what Presidents have to do. The one who takes that step first will "win".

Posted by james23 | September 12, 2007 3:17 PM

Has anyone figured out why Fred announced the day before 9/11 that UBL should get "due process" if captured? what the heck was he thinking (if anything)?

Posted by jpm100 [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 12, 2007 10:42 PM

Romney responds to the accusation:

I found it a bit lacking at this time and would hope for more follow up. But it still deserves mention.

Posted by jack | September 13, 2007 1:10 AM

This is, by far, the dumbest "scandal" of the year.

Post a comment