The anti-Thompson mud fest goes on.
Near the bottom of this article can be found the Thompson camp's simple and logical response to the lobbying for abortion smear: Thompson consulted with collegues working on that issue and asked some questions of Bush administration officials for the benefit of those collegues (as any member of a lobbying firm would- for collegues), but did no lobbying on the issue himself.
Interesting, that remark by "GOP analyst" Jennifer Rubin. I wonder whether Ms. Rubin works for one of Sen. Thompson's opponents?
In any case, the article is just another example of the determination of the MSM to discredit Fred Thompson not only by making mountains out of molehills, but insisting that they're really, really bad molehills.
Interesting, that remark by "GOP analyst" Jennifer Rubin. I wonder whether Ms. Rubin works for one of Sen. Thompson's opponents?
In any case, the article is just another example of the determination of the MSM to discredit Fred Thompson not only by making mountains out of molehills, but insisting that they're really, really bad molehills.
Comments
"Don't believe Thompson's claim that he understands the Islamist jihadist threat to America. His announcement, yesterday, of his choice of Spencer Abraham as campaign manager, told us everything we need to know. Although Abraham, of Lebanese descent, is a Maronite Christian, he is a career water carrier for Islamists of the most extremist stripe and made that the cornerstone of his failed, one-term Senate career and equally lousy tenure as Energy Secretary."
That's the kind section of Debbie's column.
Fred has some 'splaining to do.
I think Fred's understanding of the Jihadist threat is patent. And certainly Debbie's rhetoric is rather... shall we say... ripe.
Best, I think, to judge FDT's understanding of the issues by what he says, not by what columnists choose to infer.
Michelle Malkin discusses the selection in her column, "Fred Thompson and Spencer Abraham: Bad combo"
Abraham simply has no socially redeeming value as a political entity in the GOP. So the question is why did Fred choose him?
Does Fred think that conservatives will open their checkbooks when Spencer comes glad-handing? Or is Spenser going to schmooze the "moderates" (a more polite term for what they should be called) with his spin on Fred's platform and Fred will tell the conservatives what they want to hear. The clymer press will really jump on that (though ignoring it when done by demonrats).
But the basic question--without all the baggage of diverting arguments is simply--Why did Fred choose Spencer Abraham?
This is an important question, not because it raises other questions about Thompson's actual or hidden views on various issues (which Schlussel, in her column, has raised and attacked), but because it is an important question, by itself, to ask of any potential presidential candidate: What are the standards you use in selecting the people who work with you in various position, and on whom you will depend for information, advice, and implementation of decisions?
We have already seen poor choices by President Bush in his first cabinet, in later appointments, and in an initial Supreme Court nomination. We have seen the effects of letting cabinet members from an earlier administration remain to hamper, hamstring, and pervert Bush administration policy.
Now, we have a case in which it is reasonable to ask Fred Thompson, "What did you look for in selecting someone to work for you?" Right now it's about your campaign manager; but it could be about your Vice Presidential running mate, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Supreme Court nominee, or a high level advisor in your adminstration (which some campaign managers become).
A President, unless he has an IQ over 200 and the aggressiveness of Patton, has to depend on a relatively small set of advisors and administrators around him. His ability to pick suitable people for these positions is critical. The question needs to be asked... and answered.
Spencer Abraham is Fred Thompson's acting campaign manager, for crying out loud! He is not his Secretary of State or Vice Presidential nominee or Supreme Court justice or anything remotely similar. He occupies no policy position whatsoever, and is merely charged- on a temporary basis- with the political direction of the nascent Thompson campaign. Presumably he was selected for his
skill in this area, as well as his connections with people who are more than likely not Islamic terrorists (many, on the other hand, may well be members of the Republican Party in Michigan, an important state where Mitt Romney has the strong advantage of strong contacts dating back to the time when he was the governor's little boy.
Nor is Spence Abraham in any sense Benedict Arnold- and surely, Carl, you see how off the wall your comparison to Benedict Arnold is! Abraham is a guy with a record of ill-conceived positions on a range of issues with which he will not even be called upon to deal in the job to which he's been appointed.
I can understand your discomfort with Abraham- and Schlussel's. I would share it were Abraham appointed to a policy position. And when Spencer Abraham is appointed to a policy decision, your argument(and Schlussel's) will make sense. But with all due respect, appointing as acting campaign manager is simply no big deal- and trying to make it a big deal because some campaign managers for some presidents have sometimes been given policy positions later borders on being a parody of ideological paranoia.
When Spencer Abraham is actually appointed to a position with the slightest policy implications, I'll join you in your concern. But not until. At this point, being concerned about the policy positions of Spencer Abraham (as if Thompson hadn't made his own perfectly clear) is on a level with throwing a fit because the guy who works on Thompson's car belongs to the ACLU.
Has she taken a page from the Ward Churchill playbook?
Bring on the xenophobes!
As a gung-ho Thompson supporter, this has caused me to re-think my hopes of a FDT ballot. (That, and the $3,000 needed for my family and I to hear him speak...sheesh!)
On a lot of levels, the Abraham decision was not a wise one. For someone who has stated his anti-terrorism stance, as well as his non-capitulating to the Arab power, his hiring of Abraham sends out mixed signals. Is he doing this to get the "Arab vote"? Sounds like capitulating to me! I don't care who or what you are, if you like a candidate, you will vote for them based on their platform.
It's not Fred, it's his hiring policy. And his silence on it. And...his flip-floping on announcement dates. The longer he takes to announce, the more I look at other candidates.
With Spencer Abraham on board...I'm looking more at Romney.
Can you give anything like actual facts to support your discomfort? Perhaps a link to congressional voting records (which are all online at WaPo). Please cite a specific bill which concerns you.
Also, can you document these "alignments" with "Arab-Islamic groups"?? Provide us with a link to a news article? Something? Anything? (BTW< links to Ms. Schlussel's blog don't count, since she never cites any actual "facts" either!)
Second- and here's the point Carl can't seem to grok- don't you think Thompson's voting record, rather than Abraham's, is the issue here?
Again, Abraham has been hired as a technician (NOT as campaign manager!). He has no policy role. He's a guy with clout in a key state- a guy which neither you nor I nor Thompson agrees on the issues
in question. So while I share your chagrin at the hiring, I don't share your sense that this is the apocalypse.
It was a blunder, yes- but not a reasonable ground to defect to an inferior candidate. FDT's own positions on terrorism and Israel speak for themselves.