Posted on 09/11/2007 8:50:15 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yeah, it was so “remote” that when Romney said “shut it down” it shut down.
A general is responsible for the bad acts of the lowliest private, even if there is no way said general could prevent it. Witness the general over (the general over) Abu Grab. Witness the Air Force general and the 5 hour missing nukes.
The CIC is held to the same standard, as are those who seek the CIC position.
The true conservative response would be to say “Sorry, I’ve heard the excuses, but the buck stops with me. There is no place in the campaign for people who do things like that. I will put measures in place to make sure this won’t happen again.” And then put such measures in place.
I look forward to two more years of snotty kids in their playpen, playing 'gotcha'. I think I'll re-read Animal Farm to get in the spirit.
Thank you for expressing my feelings when I read such post that show if they don't care about the facts, it is obvious they also could careless about the substance or qualities that their candidate brings to the table!
I have throughout my business life. As a member of management I was always held responsible for my organization and the individuals therein. And I was held accountable for their success, or lack thereof.
Assuming you have children (I don't know...) are you prepared to be responsible for the activities of all your children's acquaintances? Do your kids' friends do bad things sometimes? Shall we put that on your shoulders?
Specious argument. These wasn't the kid a child ran with. This was the business partner of a paid adviser to a presidential candidate. And that business partner used the business resources he held in common with the paid adviser to create/publish the website. Big difference.
That's essentially what this round of Mitt-bashing tries to do.
No, I just corrected that misconception above.
I’m not sure what the hubbub is about either. I will be ticked if Mitt Romney fires this guy over that. I agreed with the jettisonning of Craig, but not over this. He’s doing his job in SC, which is to bring Fred down to earth like the rest of us. If anyone is being unfair, its Fred Thompson, by waiting forever to run. How can you criticize someone’s positions if they don’t have any? How can you question a candidate’s accomplishments when there is no candidate?
there were too many hits on google to post:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DAB4223B-3048-5C12-00A1BBD00338B155
According to people involved with The Daily Shot, the venture is owned by two South Carolina Republicans: Michael Rentiers, a lobbyist; and Wesley Donehue, a Tompkins Thompson Sullivan employee who is also a partner in a new media consulting firm called “Under The Power Lines.”
http://www.zoominfo.com/search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=249199351
http://www.blogger.com/profile/08645492301315179652
http://schotline.blogspot.com/2006/03/status-quo-staton-strikes-again.html
http://crunchygop.com/wp-stats.php?author=Wesley+Donehue
Put the site back up Mitt! As for Tompkins, sounds like he was just doing his job, which is hammer away at Fred Thompson in South Carolina. There is nothing illegal, unethical or “dirty” about these tactics. You don’t think the other campaigns aren’t using dirty tricks re: Mit’s religion to derail his campaign in South Carolina? Anyone who pretends that politics isn’t a rough business is either naive or lying.
I only have to say one thing about this: RDS (Romney Derangement Syndrome) has infected many conservatives.
It’s sad. Very sad.
If he's acting on behalf of the campaign, then why pretend he isn't? Why not proudly stand behind the site?
If anyone is being unfair, its Fred Thompson, by waiting forever to run.
LOL! Thompson is playing by the rules, and it's "unfair" because Romney fell into the Clinton trap of starting way too early.
But I guess without starting so early, Romney wouldn't have been able to buy the Iowa straw poll, or pack a young republicans' dinner and straw poll with senior citizens to buy another win.
Let's see... Romney groups such as "Evangelicals for Mitt" spend all spring and summer trashing a guy who isn't even running yet, the Romney campaign wins straw polls buy outright bribery, and it's Thompson who's somehow the bad guy here?
If anyone is being unfair, it's asparagus by waiting so long to join FR so he can disparage Republican candidates. OTOH, it may be unfair for other Repubs to have entered the race so early because they completely turned off a good part of the FR electorate.
How can you criticize someone’s positions if they don’t have any?
How can you say Fred doesn't have any positions when they've been displayed around here for months? Oops. I forgot, you just joined recently.
How can you question a candidate’s accomplishments when there is no candidate?
Haven't you heard? Fred's running. He announced the evening of September 5th.
Oh! Welcome to FR.
I’m seeing a real note of desperation in all this denial. It may not be on the part of the Romney campaign (who knows?), but it sure appears in the responses of his supporters I’ve read today.
Whether or not this came from Romney's campaign is still debateable. There is plausible deniablility, however. Even if you are responsible, you don't admit responsibility as it would derail your candidacy more than the cover up (assuming the cover up is effective and provides plausible deniability). Sadly, this is the nature of our election process. Those who believe that Mitt is too nice to play rough are mistaken. He took a hard lesson from Ted Kennedy years ago.
The question is, how do you consider so-called "dirty tricks" when evaluating the desirability of a candidate? If so, then consider to what nature the dirty tricks were "patently unfair" or were a "gross manipulation of the truth". In this case, this website attempted to poke fun at Fred Thompson, but did not make any untrue statement and did not attempt to deceive its audience.
I cite every Fred thead out there as my excuse for not joining FR until recently. And I’ve never said a bad thing about Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee (other than I don’t support the fair tax).
My amusement comes from the rabid denials from the Romney camp, despite this sort of attack being exactly their M.O. and done by people linked very closely to the official campaign.
I mean, come on... either castigate the person who did this, and cut the firm loose, or admit you're doing it and put the "Paid for by the Mitt Romney campaign" stamp on it.
Makes no sense. The Fred threads aren't going away anytime soon. so why join now?
I’ll update my homepage rather than bog down the thread.
Well, I for one am not falling apart by any means. Thompson has already received many attacks, and I realize there will be more to come. Undoubtedly Mitt has been attacked too. Mitt may well have had no knowlege or sanction of this act, but it’s disengenuous of his supporters to go overboard defending a tactic such as this. Mitt certainly isn’t.
Tactics like this are unseemly. I wouldn’t / won’t approve if the Thompson campaign ever had anything to do with something of this sort. Isn’t it time to start raising the bar in how we treat our own candidates rather than wallowing in mud?
The public overall is getting sick and tired of mudslinging, IMO. Whatever happened to Reagan’s 11th Commandment of not attacking other Republicans? Seems a lot more could stand to bear in mind that wise advice these days.
Mitt knows this idiot did him no favors. And I think deep-down the Mitt supporters know it too.
That is, indeed, Romney's signature at the bottom. (hat tip, National Review Online) It seems Romney's revent low-tax proposals are as newly-discovered as his recent conversions on abortion, gays, immigration, and gun control.
Now, that's lame. Especially on this thread.
Your criticisms are pathetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.