Posted on 09/12/2007 3:49:22 AM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
Despite their efforts to put the "Anti-Fred" Website Scandal to rest, Mitt Romney's people continue to be directly tied to it as the story reverberates across the blogosphere and around the internet. The storyline is now pretty well set as "Romney responsible for...." or "Anti-Fred site traced back to Romney". Here is a good example of.........
(Excerpt) Read more at blogsforfredthompson.com ...
“Precious Willard”
It’s personal, isn’t it? Or because he’s Mormon?
And to provide the Democrats with future talking points.
Candidates use negative campaigning primarily to throw their opponents off-message.
Sorry, I can’t completely discount character. You should give yourself some credit, as can President Bush, and Mitt — both of whom, I suspect, would credit the Lord for their strength. It is not inconsistent to give credit for personal character, and the Lord. Hopefully, faith in the Lord helps develop and maintain character.
You may be right that Hillary will avoid it. Although she is currently in the position of “wronged” spouse and therefore more sympathetic. She could also use surrogates to bring it up.
As I said, I just don’t know. It matters to me. Maybe it won’t matter to anybody else. Maybe the Democrats won’t dare to bring it up.
An implication in that context is a confirmation. If it weren’t true, he would have said so. He didn’t want to lie.
BTW, your tagline makes me laugh. I AM a strong woman. I don’t support Hillary because she is a Marxist dyke.
I don’t know. I thought the specific story was about the “Under the Power Lines” company, that it was THAT company’s web site that was associated with the anti-fred web site.
The question I thought was whether Donehue could have taken the action he did using the resources he did without Tompkin’s approval. I don’t see any evidence the other two companies were involved, only the web resource of the company for which Donehue is a partner.
I’ll just say this in conclusion. If the web site had been full of false attacks, if there was clear evidence Tompkins knew about it and didn’t stop it, if there was any serious breach of trust, those would be things that would make me at least think a little more about this.
But a trivial, common campaign tactic, exercised by someone not directly associated with a campaign, that was eliminated as soon as it became known, that the candidate has publicly DENOUNCED — I think I can safely put this one behind me, barring any more FACTS showing that Romney, Tompkins, and Donehue are lying to me.
Romney will be associated with this in the minds of many no matter what else happens. People will always remember that “anti-fred” site associated with the “Romney” camp.
That’s a far cry from the story being “Fred Thompson Campaign calls Mitt Romney a liar”. You don’t simply back off and forget when one campaign accuses the other campaign of lying. That’s the kind of thing that could prevent candidates from endorsing one another later, and prevent their supporters from coming on board.
A smart candidate would drop this, and certainly discourage personal attacks on their opposition. Romney did this by denouncing the site. Thompson should do this by repudiating the statement of his staff that Romney is lying.
Then we can all get back to fighting over which candidate’s change in positions is more “sincere”. :-)
I am trying hard to overcome my fear.
I would imagine Thompson has extracted about all the milage he can out of this situation. I would agree that it is time for him to back off. Thompson doesn't want to look like he is whining, after all.
You shouldn't necessarily. Supposing his campaign did not know about the site beforehand, it still matters what he does now. The only acceptable action is to insist that the responsible fellow is fired or else stop doing business with his companies.
In The Mahabarata, the great epic war poem of Hinduism, the heroes are fighting a great battle, badly outnumbered. But their advantage is that they are so good and pure that their chariots do not even touch the ground.
At one point, the enemy's great warrior is slaughering their men by the hundreds. The only thing the warrior cares about besides killing is his beloved son, Asamthwatta. The heros hatch a plan to defeat him, by making him believe that his son has been killed.
They find an elephant named Asamthwatta and chop it's head off. At that point, they all start yelling that Asamthwatta has been killed. The hero's leader, who never told a lie, adds under his breath "Asamthwatta the Elephant". But, nevertheless, at that point, his chariot falls to the ground and sinks into the mud. He must fight the rest of the battle without his great advantage.
Of course, the enemy's hero, on hearing of the death of Asamthwatta, falls to the ground and is quickly slain. But the loss of the floating chariot is far greater than the gain of killing this one warrior. They eventually win, but at a much greater cost.
The point of the story is that Mitt Romney has been seen, by many, as being the clean technocrat who is above the fray. He has lost that presumption over this matter, and will now have to fight it out in the mud like everybody else. This is his "Asamthwatta the Elephant" moment.
PS. I apologize to any Hindus out their for butchering your classic literature.
Well then you don't believe what Christ said when he said if you look at a woman with lusting it is as if you have committed adultery.
President Bush, and Mitt
Huh? Bush was an Alcoholic (Well Technically he still is as you never really get over that) why is his sin lesser than Thompson's?
Remember when David laid with Bathsheba and sent Uriah to his death when he was called out and repented to God he said *his sin was against You alone*, against God! not against Uriah. All sin including looking at a woman with lust is against God!
It is not inconsistent to give credit for personal character, and the Lord.
Yes it is! When you do both you are the Pharisee 'Thank you God that *I* am not like the sinners...'. He gave both credit to himself and God yet Christ pointed out how sinful that pride is.
Ashwattahama, not Asamthwatta. Sorry.
The Pharisees had a lot of other problems besides pride. They rejected the Messiah because of their traditions — traditions which gave them income and status. They concocted Jesus’ judicial murder.
I think you have taken some pretty extreme positions on the meaning of Bible verses, and there are Bible verses suggesting opposite conclusions, which I don’t have time to locate and quote now.
But, for example, do you really believe that David committed no sin against Uriah?
By your arguments, nothing that we do matters. There is no such thing as character.
Even though it is true that the best of us is a sinner in some way, character still counts, especially when we are choosing leaders to exercise power over us.
Some people behave better than others. Some sins are worse than others. Otherwise, murder would be no worse than, say, feeling momentarily proud of your brand-new, beautiful car that you earned and bought for yourself.
Alcoholism is not as bad as adultery, because you are not cheating the person to whom you have sworn fidelity before God.
“Adultery in the heart” is not as bad as adultery in fact, because there is less damage to the spouse, among other things. If that were not so, why haven’t you just acted out on your attraction to women other than your wife?
And? This does not change the fact elevating someone *and* God for how good they are is exactly what the Pharisees would do.
But, for example, do you really believe that David committed no sin against Uriah?
All Sin is against God! The sin committed against man is nothing compared to the offense at the perfect creator of the universe.
By your arguments, nothing that we do matters. There is no such thing as character.
Twisting it a bit... Everything you do matters and you own every evil you commit but every good is credited to God!
Even though it is true that the best of us is a sinner in some way, character still counts, especially when we are choosing leaders to exercise power over us.
We are all sinners in *MANY* ways. And I will say again what is revealed in Isiah "all our righteousness [good works] are as filthy rags".
Otherwise, murder would be no worse than, say, feeling momentarily proud of your brand-new, beautiful car that you earned and bought for yourself.
Christ says if you call someone a fool you have murdered them..
Alcoholism is not as bad as adultery, because you are not cheating the person to whom you have sworn fidelity before God.
Alcoholism is finding your peace in the drink you are worshiping another God!
“Adultery in the heart” is not as bad as adultery in fact
Please go to scripture and show me where that is supported..
This is getting tiresome, and not very compelling argument. Bye.
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.