Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Plot Against Fred
Bill Quick senses a conspiracy against Fred Thompson, and I am Marcus Junius Brutus.
Case in point: Libertarian mag Reason’s Dave Weigel offers up a badly-researched - no, an entirely unresearched and unsupported - slam at “Light Fred” on September 7.
On September 8, Giuliani flack Rick Brookhiser blurts an almost identical rant about “Done-Nothing Fred.”
And immediately after Fred declared, the Romney campaign put up a web site chock full of such thoughtful political arguments against Thompson as “dubbing the former TV star and senator Fancy Fred, Five O’clock Fred, Flip-Flop Fred, McCain Fred, Moron Fred, Playboy Fred, Pro-Choice Fred, Son-of-a-Fred and Trial Lawyer Fred.”
Now, three instances in a week or so don’t make a trend, but they may make a leading indicator. My hunch is that everybody has had their oppo research teams combing over Fred’s entire life story since it became obvious that Thompson would eventually enter the race, but they didn’t come up with much they could convincingly attack him with.
I may as well confess: I was at the meeting with Everybody. George Soros and Judi Nathan Giuliani served salmon and hummus and gave a splendid Powerpoint presentation about the Fred Threat. We we warned that if we didn't sink Thompson with our blog posts and whisper campaigns, he stood to become the most effective and popular president in history. Rick Brookhiser, however, was not at the meeting, as he's busy doing oppo research on Alexander Hamilton.
Seriously, Quick doesn't understand how this stuff works. I've been following Thompson for a while, reading contemporary and older profiles, listening to speeches, combing his ballyhooed (more so now than it was at release) report "Government at the Brink." After a six month pre-campaign his pitch is pretty free of substance: No tax plans, no health care plans, no vision for Iraq or the war on terror apart from some bromides that could have come from a Michael Ledeen word jumble. I'll engage Fred's ideas as soon as he offers some.
UPDATE: Michael Pack points out that "presidents are not suppose to have tax and health care plans." I agree that presidents shouldn't actually pledge to solve all of our problems as if they have an unbottled genie in the Treasury and Congress is a bunch of bobbleheads with rubber-stamp attachments. That's not an argument against taking positions, though. Thompson used to support Social Security accounts, and now he wants "bipartisan study" of what to do with Social Security. There's a happy medium between Rudy Giuliani's 10-point plans and Ron Paul's "abolish departments we don't need," but Thompson isn't there.
|9.11.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Doesn't your last sentence just sum up the reasonable position on Thompson right now? Despite everyone else's efforts to be first out of the gate, it's still relatively early in the campaign. Let's just wait and see what substance he brings to the table. Why start slamming him before you know what he wants to do?
|9.11.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Now they're saying, as a lawyer, he represented terrorists ! Terrorists....people !
|9.11.07 @ 3:12PM|#
There's really no reason to slam the fake prosecutor who used to arrive at campaign stops in a red pickup truck he didn't own.
|9.11.07 @ 3:17PM|#
I'm not supporting Fred but, president's are not suppose to have tax and health care plans.Yes I know,we expect them to solve all these problems,or try.The executive was not created to plan the budget,or create programs.As for health care the best plan is none at all,just as non intervention in the housing market is best.The president's biggest job is to act as a brake on congress and manage affairs abroad.He's not the national nanny.
|9.11.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Now, three instances in a week or so don't make a trend, but
they may make a leading indicator.
Indeed they do - they indicate that Fred is making the same
impression on a substantial number of people. Who does that say
something about - the individuals in question, or Fred?
|9.11.07 @ 3:23PM|#
What's the theory here? Fred Thompson is such an obvious
intellectual heavyweight, and his statements so thoughtful and
substantive, that it would be impossible for people acting
independently to decide by themselves that he's an empty
suit?
OK.
|9.11.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Frankly, I don't care Fred doesn't have a plan and I don't trust politicians who do. The one legitimate slam on Thompson was his representing the Lybian terrorists who did the Lockerbe bombing detailed in TNR today. That I think is worth pondering.
|9.11.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Libertarian mag Reason's Dave Weigel offers up a
badly-researched - no, an entirely unresearched and unsupported -
slam at "Light Fred" on September 7.
If the Weigel piece was unreasearched (is unresearched a word?),
then shouldn't Mr. Quick have offered refutations and
counter-examples to prove that the reason piece was off base?
And what exactly is surprising with how the other candidates
responded? Are candidates expected to not do oppo research or try
to paint their opposition in a negative light compared to
themselves?
Quick's complaint is merely that some people aren't fawning over
Big Fred? No? Then I don't see what the point of that post was
other than to whine like a baby.
If people are spreading falsehoods or untruths then debunk them,
don't just complain that people are ganging up and being mean --
boo fucking hoo
|9.11.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Nathan,
He's had every opportunity to come forward with proposals. He
doesn't get a free pass simply because he decided to enter the race
late. Some of us are sick of his "gee golly, as grandpa Floyd used
to say, 'the flies are mighty big'" type answers to questions
regarding his positions and background.
The real question is: why does he have any supporters prior to
making a single substantive speach or policy proposal?
|9.11.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Who would you rather have defending terrorists...Fred Thompson or Lynn Stewart? Representing bad guys is a noble act, and we shouldn't stigmatize it. The only thing that can lead to is pushing unpopular defendants into the arms of unethical attorneys.
|9.11.07 @ 3:30PM|#
To a certain extent a no big ideas, do nothing president would
be a pleasant change of pace.
If we could get congress to do the same thing the world would be a
better place.
The unfortunate problem with a do nothing congress and president
would be ignoring the imploding entitlement problem.
However, since most of the politicians have done have made that
problem worse maybe do nothing is the way to go.
|9.11.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Ron Paul doesn't have big, detailed health care plans, either.
Instead, he articulates a libertarian/conservative position on the
issue.
Thompson doesn't even do that. He just yammers about flies and
possums and whatnot.
|9.11.07 @ 3:38PM|#
"Who would you rather have defending terrorists...Fred Thompson
or Lynn Stewart? Representing bad guys is a noble act, and we
shouldn't stigmatize it. The only thing that can lead to is pushing
unpopular defendants into the arms of unethical attorneys."
True. If Thompson were a big, everyone deserves the right to
representation guy, then I would totally agree with you. But these
guys were funded by the Libyan government and his firm made a
fortune off of it. Thompson only did a few hours work, but took him
money and his partner's share. He basically was just a hired gun,
which while certainly not illegal, doesn't really say to many good
things about his character. Yeah, mob lawyers who get rich like
Gerald Cutler are not doing anything illegal, but I don't think I
would want Cutler as President.
|9.11.07 @ 3:46PM|#
It's a sad fact that a person doing the job as the founders wanted,and Washington did,could never be elected.The amount of vetoes would alone would seal his doom.
|9.11.07 @ 3:51PM|#
The one legitimate slam on Thompson was his representing the
Lybian terrorists who did the Lockerbe bombing detailed in TNR
today. That I think is worth pondering.
And who was that anti-freedom, pro-monarchis who defended the
perpetrators of the Boston Massacre? What an unpatriotic asshole he
was.
|9.11.07 @ 3:55PM|#
My issue is, these terrorists had representation. This was pre
september 11'th, when we didn't disappear people for brownness.
They were in custody, and ready for a more than fair trial in The
Hague, and Fred & Co were trying to get a change of venue to
Libya motion passed. There's helping the hated get due process
rights, and then there's trying to get Qudaffi's goons off scott
free
I mean, Ted Kennedy's wife resigned from the firm in protest, and
she wasn't even asked to touch the case
|9.11.07 @ 4:00PM|#
"And who was that anti-freedom, pro-monarchis who defended the
perpetrators of the Boston Massacre? What an unpatriotic asshole he
was."
I beleive it was one of the Adams if my memory serves me. Of course
being a scared solider who fired into an angry mob is not quite the
same as being an intelligence agent who planted a bomb in a plane
killing 100s of people is not quite the same. I don't have a
problem with people who defend in indefensible on principle. I do,
however, have a problem with Thompson defending anyone with a bank
account willing to write him a large enough check. If Thompson made
his career or even a habbit of defending such people, I would be
the first to defend him. As it was, Thompson's actions just showed
he will do anything or defend anyone for the right price.
|9.11.07 @ 4:15PM|#
There's a happy medium between Rudy Giuliani's 10-point
plans and Ron Paul's "abolish departments we don't need," but
Thompson isn't there.
Actually, if you're looking for something in between those two, not
having a particular plan does seem to be "there". I'm happy to see
people ask him tough questions, and rake him over the coals if his
answers are evasive or contradictory or dumb. But if he hasn't said
much yet, that's OK with me. He'll get plenty of chances, and
anyone who's interested will be able to get a surfeit of
Fred.
And while I don't plan to vote for the man, helping out another
lawyer in the firm was pretty much one of his responsibilities.
Note also that the guilt of those particular agents was far from
cut and dried; I think only one of them was convicted, and that
under dubious circumstances.
robc|9.11.07 @ 4:18PM|#
John,
I beleive it was one of the Adams if my memory serves
me.
It was John.
I don't have a problem with people who defend in indefensible
on principle. I do, however, have a problem with Thompson defending
anyone with a bank account willing to write him a large enough
check.
Doesnt "I serve money" qualify as a principle?
Heck, Fred is sounding better and better by the minute. :)
Also, those Brits John Adams defended werent just scared soldiers,
they were members of a terrorist organization. This was the same
org that burned down the White House ~50 years later. Sounds like
terrorists to me.
rho|9.11.07 @ 4:26PM|#
How come Weigel has to defend his attack and nobody who's all
agog over Fred!--I'm including Bill Quick in that group even though
I have no idea whether he's a supporter or not, suck it up
William--has to defend his content-free campaign.
Every RedState missive was greeted with hosannas, and his
cigar-chomping YouTube rebuttals were clearly manna from Heaven.
Never mind they were in the geographic center of worthless, let's
donate to Fred!
Fluffy|9.11.07 @ 4:31PM|#
I don't have a problem with Fred defending terrorists. Good for
him.
But where was he when Bush was disappearing people into secret
prisons? Where was he when Bush administration officials were
threatening lawyers who represented terrorists after 9/11? Where IS
he when his base runs down the ACLU every two days?
If you wanna be Mr. "Everyone deserves representation" fucking get
in there and be that guy. But if you're that guy when you're out of
government but turn into Mr. "The Geneva Conventions are quaint and
anachronistic" when you're back in the political arena, then fuck
you.
SIV|9.11.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Weigel,
Look forward to being seated behind Helen Thomas at the President
Thompson press conferences/briefings.
edna|9.11.07 @ 4:44PM|#
This was pre september 11'th, when we didn't disappear
people for brownness.
looking around my neighborhood (and in my own mirror) would
indicate that if brownness is a crime, it's one that doesn't seem
to be cracked down on.
if you're going to use polemics, at least use intelligent polemics.
brown. sheesh.
|9.11.07 @ 4:46PM|#
"""" As it was, Thompson's actions just showed he will do
anything or defend anyone for the right price."""
I doubt the "do anything" part is truthful. As for the rest, it
sounds like a capitalist defense attorney to me.
|9.11.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Three different people criticized the same presidential candidate in the same week? Surely that has never happened before.
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Seriously, Quick doesn't understand how this stuff works.
Yeah, actually, Dave, I do, and I was doing it for Robert
Kennedy before you were born.
You put up a flimsy hit piece where you work yourself into faux
hysterics over Thompson's winces and groans, his shirts and his
trucks, his television persona.
This is supposed to be informed political commentary? It is, I
suppose, if you are of the Maureen Dowd school of performance
journalism.
You say you'll engage Thompson's ideas as soon as he offers some,
but still feel free to launch an attack that is little more than
sniggering and finger-pointing, and about as instructive.
Hit and run, indeed. Simply because you're too lazy to take a look
at Thompson's record in depth doesn't mean there isn't one. Just
for openers, you state that Thompson has "no tax plan." Perhaps not
in granular specifics, but the Club for Growth certainly discerns
an approach in his flat tax reform proposals, and gives him high
marks otherwise on tax issues.
But citing that wouldn't give you an opening for another cheap
quip. Of course, considering the rest of your work on the subject,
cheap is about the right price for the entire effort.
I am curious, though: What is it about Thompson that seems to
inspire such an obvious state of desperate terror in you,
Brookhiser, the Romneyites, and more than a few of your commenters
here?
Fluffy|9.11.07 @ 5:42PM|#
You want some reasons to not like Thompson?
1. He supported McCain-Feingold, so fuck him forever.
2. He has apparently been recruited to run to provide an electable
face for W's outrageous. unconscionable, and unConstitutional
national security policies.
3. He drives a pickup truck. Hey, if it's OK for people to like him
because of the truck, it's OK for me to dislike him because of the
truck.
Fluffy|9.11.07 @ 5:45PM|#
By the way - you live by the image, you die by the image.
If it wasn't for his television persona there'd be no buzz and no
enthusiasm for a Thompson campaign AT ALL. His record in the Senate
could be exchanged with that of dozens of Republican career
politicians with nothing lost. His campaign is a campaign of image,
period. His support is based mostly on perceptions of his
electability, which similarly are based on image and nothing
else.
That being the case, if people want to fuck his image up, more
power to them. Poor, poor Fred Thompson - people are taking shots
at his only asset! I feel so badly for him.
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Heh. Something calling itself "Fluffy" blabbering on about
living and dying by image.
Well, how about your image, kitty-thing? Anonymous pussy comes to
mind.
FOAD. Hard.
Fluffy|9.11.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Is that your best response, cunt?
A better response might be to tell me what makes Thompson a
compelling candidate, OTHER THAN his image.
A better response might be to try to justify his support for
McCain's legislation, or to either justify or deny that his
"savior" candidacy is designed to "save" Bush's national security
policies from the inept men who have stepped forward to carry their
banner so far this election cycle.
Oops, I guess you can't do those things. But hey, my alias is
funnier than "anonymous", so let's talk about that instead.
|9.11.07 @ 6:09PM|#
... Anonymous pussy comes to mind.
Sorry but the faux tough guy calling someone a "pussy" over the
internet seems like the real pussy to me. Especially when he can't
muster a rebuttal to the substance of the person he is
insulting.
Douchebag
mw|9.11.07 @ 6:19PM|#
"I may as well confess: I was at the meeting with
Everybody." - dw
God Damn it Weigel! I want to go to these meetings with Everybody.
I have a blog, I get blocked, I need talking points too! Best I've
been able to do is rip some commenter at Q&O:
"Fred Thompson - Because eight years of a drawl and an empty
suit are not enough."
I need new material, please see if you can get me into the next
Everybody conspiracy planning meeting.
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 6:31PM|#
Substance?
He supported McCain-Feingold, so fuck him forever.
Well, so did all the GOP candidates except Ron Paul, who is a
nutjob.
However, at least Thompson has had second thoughts. As somebody who
is a bit more thoughtful than most of those writing in this thread,
Jim Geraghty
put it:
Does this matter? Well, those following the race closely probably remember that Thompson supported McCain-Feingold. Perhaps the more interesting question is, what does Thompson think of the legislation today?
And what Thompson now thinks is
this:
As for McCain-Feingold, Thompson said on his now-famous Fox New Sunday appearance that he's open to scrapping it and going to a system of no-limits/full-and-immediate online disclosure.
Since that's the only "substance" in pussy's diatribe, and the rest is just batshit raving about Bush Konspiracies and an odd phobia about pickup trucks, it, like pussy, can be safely ignored.
Douchebag
Is that your sig?
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 6:44PM|#
For those who are willing to put in a bit of research, you could
start with these:
"Another Beltway Bubba?" by Michelle Cottle
Fred Thompson's Generall Pro-Growth Record
A FRED THOMPSON PRESIDENCY: National Record of
Accomplishments
Fred Thompson FAQ : Where Fred Stands
And here is a bit about Thompson's work in the
Senate.
And now a thought for Dave: It seems damned strange to me that a
libertarian is upset that a politician is talking about first
principles, instead of the Big Plans he has for the government. I
can't find it at the moment, but Thompson was recently asked what
accomplishments he was most proud of from his time in the Senate -
he said his most important accomplishments were probably the things
he voted against. A sentiment that a libertarian should understand.
In any event, first term Senators rarely get the status to actually
do much. They can attach their name to bills…and that's about it. I
think Thompson managed to accomplish a bit more than that.
|9.11.07 @ 7:01PM|#
but Thompson was recently asked what accomplishments he was
most proud of from his time in the Senate - he said his most
important accomplishments were probably the things he voted
against.
Would that include, along with John Edwards, opposing liability
limits for companies addressing Y2K? Or how about voting against
allowing states to set their own standards for medical malpractice?
Federalism anyone?
I think what will doom him though, was his vote to preserve welfare
benefits for illegal aliens. Cue Lonewacko!
|9.11.07 @ 7:03PM|#
Ignoring everything else, I like the fact that Fred graduated from Memphis State and got his law degree at Vanderbilt. I am completely tired of the stench of East Coast Elistism as personified by all such as Pres. Bush, Kerry, Gore and nearly every other politician, General, Beltway Boy and media dick.
|9.11.07 @ 7:04PM|#
Bill--a campaign of "vote for me because I'll pretend to be
Ronald Reagan Round II" isn't going to put him over.
Have you looked at what the man has been saying in public recently?
Frankly, it sounds like he doesn't have anything in his head aside
from platitudes, spewed out with an "aw shucks, ah nearly doggon
ran over the wife again" drawl thicker than molasses.
Well, what Bubba wants, is apparantly what Bubba gets--a president
from a TV sitcom. If the US is idiotic enough to vote Thompson in
for president, it deserves whatever happens to it.
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 7:07PM|#
Bill--a campaign of "vote for me because I'll pretend to be Ronald Reagan Round II" isn't going to put him over.
So...I guess that means you don't want to check out any of the
links I posted?
Who are you guys going to vote for? I'm just curious who you think
is going to be a better candidate than Thompson. And why, of
course.
Fluffy|9.11.07 @ 7:08PM|#
Look, Bill, I'll make it easy for you:
You asked for reasons why someone would oppose Fred Thompson.
His backtracking on McCain Feingold means nothing to me.
The rest of my post was an assertion that Thompson supports Bush's
national security policies. You appear to think that this is
"batshit raving". In that case, please provide a link to a campaign
resource for Thompson, or some credible media source, where he
directly and specifically condemns some element of Bush's national
security policy. That should be easy, since I'm raving,
right?
Maybe you have some sort of public statement he made denouncing the
Military Commissions Act? No? Maybe some public statement he made
opposing the policy of rendition? No? Some statement he made
denouncing the way the President sent Condoleeza Rice to Europe to
lie about the fact that prisoners were being secretly detained
incommunicado by the CIA? No? Come on, you must have SOMETHING.
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 7:22PM|#
As for Thompson's folksy persona, at least he comes by it
honestly. And people seem to like it. That's not necessarily a
bad thing when you're running for high office.
If you want to win, you have to connect with people. Most people,
unlike wonks like you and me, aren't interested much in a granular
discussion of tax policy carried out in hectoring preppy accents.
There will be plenty of position papers which only wonks will read,
just as only wonks pay any attention to the details of party
platforms - which are, as we know, essentially meaningless except
as a springboard for scoring transient gotchas here and
there.
The whole notion of rolling out massive, detailed plans to cover
every contingency is so pre 9/11, and, frankly, so statist. You
want a candidate with a thousand-page plan for everything,
Hillary's your man.
Most of those plans will end up worthless, anyway. Islamists out to
murder us approach us on one side, and the Singularity looms on the
other. We live in interesting times. Give me a guy with some basic
principles, leadership skills, intelligence, and the ability to
effectively meet changing circumstances like terrorist attacks, a
frangible economy, and god knows what rolling out of labs as yet
unknown, and I think we'll do better than with somebody who can
only scream in horror: But who could have imagined
that?
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 7:28PM|#
His backtracking on McCain Feingold means nothing to me.
Then what do we have to talk about?
That should be easy, since I'm raving, right?
Actually, it's impossible, since you're asking me to prove a negative, and it can't be done.
Come on, you must have SOMETHING.
I know you think you're scoring points here, but really, you aren't. Did Fred issue a statement opposing gopher subsidies in Missouri? Did he step on Condi's cape? Even if I cited answers in the affirmative to everything you request, is still wouldn't establish your point, because whether he condemns any or all of Bush's policies does absolutely nothing
to either justify or deny that his "savior" candidacy is designed to "save" Bush's national security policies from the inept men who have stepped forward to carry their banner so far this election cycle.
Your basic contention is that Thompson's candidacy is about
"saving" some aspect of Bush's policy, and then you ask me to
prove that it isn't.
Ask somebody familiar with logic. It can't be done. Really.
Margaret Allan|9.11.07 @ 7:29PM|#
Since the floor has been opened for personal attacks...
Is this the same Bill Quick?
http://www.iw3p.com/quick.shtml
Seriously? I guess one of the benefits of working is with Shatner
is access to his old hairpieces.
Hey, maybe you can co-author an alternate history with Gingrich
next, he's got some great ideas.
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 7:38PM|#
Is this the same Bill Quick?
Sure it is. 28 published novels. How many do you have?
Public, naked envy. I'm used to it, but I do have to confess. It's
so...boring.
Now if you dig even deeper (like my Wikipedia entry) you'll
discover that I named the blogosphere, too.
And you are...who, again? I know you aren't Margaret Allan, because
that's the pseudonym I used on a series of five novels that netted
me a bit north of a quarter million bucks.
And Shatner has plugs, not a hairpiece. He's a pretty nice guy,
actually, smart as hell, laughs all the way to the bank, and
wouldn't know you if he found you on the heel of his shoe.
And no, I won't introduce you, even if you do have an old Trek
screenplay hidden away in your closet underneath the smelly
socks.
Why in the hell would a presumed libertarian denigrate a writer
honestly out in the marketplace writing books that actually get
published and make money?
Fluffy|9.11.07 @ 7:45PM|#
No, Bill, you cocksucker. My "major" contention is that Thompson
supports Bush's national security policy. The notion that
the movement to draft Thompson to run is based on a desire to save
that policy is only a minor contention.
Anyone paying even remote attention to Presidential primary
politics this campaign season is well aware that Thompson did not
plan to run and did not set out to run before his name was bandied
about by Republicans unhappy with McCain, Romney and Giuliani as
standard bearers for the party. The party activists, donors and
voters most eager for a Thompson run sought his candidacy as the
best chance to avoid an election defeat that would roll back the
Bush national security policy. These are not controversial
assertions.
If you don't like the idea that Thompson wasn't called by God to
run, fine. We can let that pass by the boards if you prefer.
Regardless of whether you are willing to agree that Thompson has
been drafted to bail the Bush core of the party out, you don't seem
to deny that he supports Bush's main policies in the WoT. Will you
at least acknowledge that? Or is good old Fred just so slippery
that you don't know one way or the other?
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 7:45PM|#
By the way, I wouldn't mind at all if Lonewacko joined the conversations. We've known each other a good while, and he invariably brings actual substance to any debate.
Margaret Allan|9.11.07 @ 7:49PM|#
I don't begrudge you your money, I just can't take your opinion
seriously. Also, I'd hate to tell people that's how I came by it,
after explaining that I am not Frankie Valli.
Here's a tip though - every one that reads this site may not be a
card carrying Libertarian. Just like the man who wrote a book with
this cover might not be gay.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0451184637/IcebergProductioA/8318-0826317-834859
Rich Ard|9.11.07 @ 7:51PM|#
What do you guys do when you aren't being dicks to people on the
internet?
Just curious.
Fluffy|9.11.07 @ 7:53PM|#
"What do you guys do when you aren't being dicks to people on
the internet?"
Be dicks to people in real life.
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 7:53PM|#
No, Bill, you cocksucker.
If there's one thing I admire about you, pussy, it's the breadth of
your vocabulary. It stretches all the way from one end of your dick
to the other.
Which means you don't have to worry about cocksuckers at
all.
|9.11.07 @ 7:54PM|#
By the way, I wouldn't mind at all if Lonewacko joined the conversations. We've known each other a good while, and he invariably brings actual substance to any debate.
OK, characterizing Weigel's attitude as "hysterics" was funny.
Saying "FOAD. Hard." like a basement-dweller whose favorite video
game's been dissed was inspired. Dick-swinging about being a
novelist was excellent. But that?
That was just perfect.
Nicely done - I needed that after a long day.
ellipsis|9.11.07 @ 7:56PM|#
I like Ron Paul as much as the next libertarian, but these two
things I know: (1) Paul isn't going to get nominated; and (2) GOP
primary voters pick someone reliably conservative.
Seems to me it's going to be either Romney or Thompson for the Red
team. Over 60% of the GOP base still love Dubya, so that should
tell you something. (Mainly that they give a rat's ass about
libertarians.)
As for Weigel, he's still in his "rebel from the parents" stage.
He'll continue to cheer for the blue team until his porn and video
games get banned. [Just kidding Dave, you're alright.]
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 8:01PM|#
Here's a tip though...
Ah, yet another of the nearly infinite number of things you're clueless about. Authors - unless they're Stephen King - have nothing to say about book covers at all.
I just can't take your opinion seriously
First, whatever on earth gave you the notion I give a shit whether you take me seriously? You're so stupid you can't even think up your own alias, but have to steal one of mine. Second,
with this cover might not be gay.
Why would you think this is an insult? Projecting a little? Kinda like pussy cocksucker over their meowing in the corner?
Nicely done - I needed that after a long day.
Yeah, panhandling must really take it out of you. Glad I could help.
Bill Quick|9.11.07 @ 8:02PM|#
Okay, kiddies, it's been fun. Maybe I'll drop by and see you again sometime.
mw|9.11.07 @ 8:10PM|#
"Who are you guys going to vote for? I'm just curious who
you think is going to be a better candidate than
Thompson."
I am voting for the Republican nominee for President no matter who
it is, because I will be voting for divided government in '08. Just
like I voted straight Democratic for the House and Senate in '06
for exactly the same reason. So far, I am happy with my vote as
divided government is working well, but I am worried that the
Republicans seem to be hell-bent on making it impossible to get
divided government re-elected in '08.
"I'm just curious who you think is going to be a better
candidate than Thompson."
Oh - he is probably no worse than the rest of the pack (Ron Paul
excepted but Ron Paul being unelectable makes supporting him
problematical)
My strong preference was for Chuck Hagel, but apparently he was
gelded after 12 years in the Senate and is not an option (unless he
uses the same definition of "intend" that Larry Craig uses).
So, out of this bunch, I'll take who give they give me. I have a
minor preference for Romney, as he has a Clinton-esque ability to
change core convictions as the political winds blow, so we can
safely ignore whatever he says to the ragged right to get the
nomination, knowing he'll blow with the 70% wind and get us out of
Iraq when elected.
mantooth|9.11.07 @ 8:12PM|#
Awesome. A wealthy man, pacing in front of a computer trying to
come up with schoolyard-level taunts.
Don't worry Bill, Fred will be president soon and he'll keep you
safe with his soothing voice and reassuring height.
DannyK|9.11.07 @ 8:13PM|#
Damn, I need to get faster with the posting. I was going to say
something snarky, and the venom level of the discussion is already
in the Mega-Godwins.
Fortunately, like the proverbial bus, there'll be another
Fred-skeptic post along any minute.
Minion of URKOBOLD|9.11.07 @ 8:20PM|#
WHAT A FINE MAN, THAT BILL.
WHAT THE URKOBOLD WOULDN'T GIVE TO MAKE GENTLE, PASSIONATE, SOFT
LOVE TO THE NECK STUMP OF A BILL MANNEQUIN WHILE
THE BLOW UP NOAM CHOMSKY DOLL WATCHES WITH SWEET, SWEET
JEALOUSY
|9.11.07 @ 8:58PM|#
By the way, I wouldn't mind at all if Lonewacko joined the
conversations. We've known each other a good while, and he
invariably brings actual substance to any debate.
Either that was an impersonator trying to make you look bad, or you
just thoroughly and completely discredited yourself by that
statement.
SIV|9.11.07 @ 9:35PM|#
Speaking of lonewacko.... IllegalMexicans may be self deporting!
I saw an article in the Memphis Commercial-Appeal today at lunch
that said they were missing 3750 students from the public
schools.Naturally I assumed previous administrators had been
padding the roles to get more $$$ from Uncle Sugar-after all
Memphis is the home of the Fords.Then I read Kaus and there is more
school enrollment evidence in GA and elsewhere.Over at the Big
Picture Ritholtz is parsing the BLS statistics and finds a million
workers have dissapeared from the labor pool( he doesn't connect to
the immigrants).
Looks like the market may be solving the "problem".
Bill Quick certainly livened things up around here. Too bad there
weren't more Dem-shilling liberaltarians around to make it a
party.
|9.11.07 @ 9:49PM|#
I can hardly wait until his fellow Republicans start taking Fred Thompson to task for voting to acquit President Clinton on the charge of perjury.
|9.11.07 @ 11:23PM|#
Chris S.,
If Weigel's original post had simply asked why everyone is so
excited about a guy who hasn't shown us any substance yet, I would
agree with. However, that wasn't the point of Weigel's piece.
Instead, he castigated Thompson for such vile sins as not smiling
on Leno, renting a truck, and lacking enthusiasm for partisan
hackery against President Clinton. One need only read these attacks
to be underwhelmed.
TH|9.11.07 @ 11:41PM|#
While it would probably suck if every H&R thread was like this, it was hilarious. Good job.
Dave Weigel|9.12.07 @ 12:31AM|#
If Weigel's original post had simply asked why everyone is
so excited about a guy who hasn't shown us any substance yet, I
would agree with. However, that wasn't the point of Weigel's piece.
Instead, he castigated Thompson for such vile sins as not smiling
on Leno, renting a truck, and lacking enthusiasm for partisan
hackery against President Clinton. One need only read these attacks
to be underwhelmed.
I had some fun with Thompson's Leno appearance and campaign shtick
and then I got into his bumbling campaign finance investigations
and his uninteresting government reform study. I could have spent
more time on his Senate accomplishments/mistakes, but why bother -
Thompson only mentions them in one paragraph of his announcement
speech, in between a lot of guff about growing up and standing up
to terrorists.
I don't know why Quick went postal on this thread. I'm guessing he
sized up his drippy insult humor (Democrats are "donks," Giuliani's
campaign narrative is "bullshit," etc.) against my writing and got
a little green-eyed.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.07 @ 12:50AM|#
There's a happy medium between Rudy Giuliani's 10-point
plans and Ron Paul's "abolish departments we don't need
There ain't neither.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.07 @ 12:59AM|#
My grandfather observed that some guys grow an inch with every
beer they drink. In the new millenieum there are way too many of
those who are ever so brave and courageous. Why they'll call you a
cocksucker, apussy, or tell you to fuck off, but only if there is a
nice little computer screen in front of their face to protect them
from errant fists.
Ain't never run across one yet that had the cajones to say that
shit to somebody's face.
Turns and spits.
|9.12.07 @ 1:26AM|#
Man!
Has anybody ever seen Bill Quick and Eric Dondero together in the
same room at the same time?
That actually would be funny; I imagine an imagined slight would
get them fighting, and not knowing how to back down they would make
lots of noise until people dragged them apart before they actually
landed any blows. And, as they were pulled apart, each one would be
secretly glad. That is, assuming that they are actually different
people.
hrm|9.12.07 @ 1:51AM|#
So that's what ghostwriting for Shatner's hairplugs turns you
into... a one note pony with a minimal vocabulary who actually
thinks Thompson is a compelling candidate.
And no, he didn't invent the really horrid and fortunately passe
word 'blogosphere'. He just helped inflict it on an undeserving
populace.
|9.12.07 @ 9:39AM|#
OK, seriously people, who among you can say that Bill didn't win
you over with his impassioned defense of Fred Thompson?
(1) Scream "it's not fair"; (2) Attack the nearest target; (3) Hope
(and assume?) that the victims of your attack will magically see
everything your way.
Ta da! Foreign policy and online commenting strategy in three easy
steps! (the strategy is free online, but I'll have to charge you
between 400 billion and 2 trillion + thousands of corpses to use
this gem in the real world)
rho|9.12.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Watching Bill Quick go "I'm rich and published and you're not"
was the funniest thing I've seen all day.
BTW, I've read his links. Where they aren't resume-filler
material--[i] Senator Thompson believes that the United States has
a unique role in the world given our economic prosperity, military
power, and the strength of our principles, democratic ideals, and
values.[/i]--it actively rebuts Bill Quick's assertions--[i] Part
of (McCain Feingold) is good law, and part of it is not.
[/i].
No, McCain/Feingold was bad law, through and through. Fred! is a
weak-ass candidate, but that doesn't prevent him from being
thoroughly electable regardless. I imagine that's quite a relief
for Bill.
As to whether Ron Paul is a "nutjob": well, he was right about
McCain/Feingold; he was right about Iraq; he was right about Iraq's
WMD; he was right about the Bush administration's warrantless
wiretapping; he was right about habeas corpus. I don't
know when it became fashionable to shit on people for being correct
in the face of extreme pressure to capitulate, but Bill Quick's
really good at dropping trou and pinching one off. Practice, I
assume.
|9.12.07 @ 10:09AM|#
Dave,
Get the hell of Bill Quick's lawn! He flacked for Bobby Kennedy,
goddammit!
Bobby!
Grumble gruble damn kids with their intertubes and their e-pods
grumble grumble.
|9.12.07 @ 10:11AM|#
BTW, Thompson defenders complaining about a lack of substance in
the discussion of a presidential candidate is pretty damn funny to
watch.
Well, you see, Bill when the flies start a-buzzin' round the
possum...
|9.12.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Wow.
Talk about getting your asses handed to you.
Of course, that's to be expected on a website where statements like
'getting disappeared for browness' are taken seriously.
I've watched Reason take it's headlong hurtle down the crapper and
I'm saddened. This used to be a place with good ideas and
interesting opinions. Now.....
And people wonder why libretarians are treated like a joke.
|9.12.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Nicely done - I needed that after a long day.
Yeah, panhandling must really take it out of you.
*tries not to be disappointed in that lame zinger - all great
performers run out of steam, and sometimes it's before they've gone
offstage*
|9.12.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Of course, that's to be expected on a website where
statements like 'getting disappeared for browness' are taken
seriously.
Laugh if you want, but I used to work with a guy who had a
prominent brow, and he's in Gitmo now.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245