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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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?
Now they’re saying, as a lawyer, he represented terrorists ! Terrorists….people !
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Is it me, or does Fred always look sleepy ?
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.
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.
Maybe people aren’t appreciating … The Audacity of Fred.
“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.
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.
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.
Civil or criminal?
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
“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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Weigel,
Look forward to being seated behind Helen Thomas at the President Thompson press conferences/briefings.
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.
“””” 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.
Three different people criticized the same presidential candidate in the same week? Surely that has never happened before.
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.
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.
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.
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.
… 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
What will Wild Bill’s next move be? Trackback of Death?
“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.
Substance?
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:
And what Thompson now thinks is
this:
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.
Is that your sig?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
What do you guys do when you aren’t being dicks to people on the internet?
Just curious.
“What do you guys do when you aren’t being dicks to people on the internet?”
Be dicks to people in real life.
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.]
Okay, kiddies, it’s been fun. Maybe I’ll drop by and see you again sometime.
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I don’t have a plan either … why can’t I be president!
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.
While it would probably suck if every H&R thread was like this, it was hilarious. Good job.
Rick Brookhiser is definitely not a “Giuliani flack.”
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.
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.
Minion wins the thread.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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…
I’ve learned my lesson, and this year I’m voting for the turd sandwich.
Er, next year.
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.
Oh hay hai, Jack
jack sure told us.
DRINK!
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.
Good. All the Cro-maggers should be locked up.