Posted on 09/12/2007 3:49:22 AM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
As long as Mitt Romney supporters continue to make comments like this, Fred Thompson supporters are going to come back and connect the dots between the people who produced the web site and Romney.
I have no problem believing that Romney did not direct the creation of this site and did not approve it. But it is not true to say he had nothing to do with it.
Let's' all just be frank about that, and the whole matter could be settled.
Do you think there is insufficient interest in this matter? I count three news articles from real-live newspapers that have been sourced in this thread, and there seems to be a lot of enthusiastic participation.
Why do you want it consigned to Bloggers/Personal oblivion?
My analysis is this.....
As more FReepers take the time to seriously look at Duncan Hunter to be Commander in Chief.. there seems to be a growing number of them leaving the Fred Camp and joining the Duncan Hunter team...
if you are one of those folks please join the Duncan Hunter meetup group(s)
http://DuncanHunter.meetup.com/1
It’s always heartwarming to hear from Fred’s classy supporters.
Because blog entries ABOUT stories are almost universally forced into the bloggers/personal section.
It is quite a rare occurance when a blog entry, and especially a blog entry directly associated with a political campaign, ends up in news/activism.
But as I asked this privately of the moderators when the post first hit, and they didn’t move it, I’m presuming the moderators support Fred enough to allow it to stay where it is.
I doubt a post from “Evangelicals for Romney” would get the same consideration. It is beginning to look like Fred is going to be the official Presidential Candidate of Free Republic.
One word: Equity.
I have in the past posted personal observations about issues that everybody else was talking about, and they have gotten unceremoniously whisked away from News/Activism to Bloggers & Personal or General/Chat within minutes.
Primary example: My original analysis over the controversy over President Bush saying to Matt Lauer in a pre-election 2004 interview "I don't think you can win it," "It" being the war on terror. Kerry and Edwards and every media outlet save Fox News and, surprisingly, NBC News, deliberately misinterpreted it, leading up to Edwards' hilarious declaration to bin Laden that he and Kerry would track him down and kill him. It could not have possibly been more than ten minutes before that thread was shifted from News/Activism to Bloggers & Personal. The link in the N/A sidebar disappeared, and it died after six replies and less than a hundred views.
Meanwhile, vanity threads that seem to have been written with clenched fists banging the keyboard by people bitching about Shepard Smith are posted in News/Activism and stay there. Last week, a thread titled " I LIKE CHEESE!!! (I have no sister or moose) (vanity)" stayed in News/Activism.
You tell me, gridlock; What indication of a consistent policy exists here?
Wouldn't you surmise that a vanity thread from a blog sourcing itself and posting under a screen name that is the URL of the blog firmly places it in the "Bloggers & Personal" section? To me, it qualifies as spam; it certainly is NOT a "news" story. BlogsforThompson.com is doing the same thing the Washington Post did regarding George Allen's unfortunate "macaca" gaffe and all the MSM did regarding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's anti-Kerry ads: they declared that intractable damage to their ideological opponents' public image had been done, and cited as proof their own drumbeat of biased coverage of the alleged damage.
IOW, the Fred people, aware that there is no direct connection to the Romney campaign anymore than there was a direct connection of the anti-Hillary "1984" Macintosh spoof an Obama contractor posted on YouTube, want to pound into your brain that Romney's denials are falling on deaf ears among the populace when there is little evidence anyone even gives a rat's.
The speciousness of the blogsforthompson.com angle is secondary to my complaint. The larger point is that it seems more and more lately like the moderators are acting like Judge Roy Bean. As much as I can't stand Ron Paul, it was outrageous that a moderator inserted a series of images lampooning Paul underneath a Paul press release posted by a Paul supporter.
Do the mods even have rules to abide by? And why don't any of them have the balls to reply?
The first reply you get with a comment like that is going to be a fireball from above. I've been there, trust me.
At the end of the day, the rules are whatever JimRob wants them to be. He seems to be having a fair amount of success with this thing, following his own internal rules.
If I were Admin Moderator for a day, I would get rid of all of the sidebar classifications. I would like it better if everything was dumped into the general forum. If a stupid vanity is not worthy of interest, it will die a quick death as people ignore it. If there is something that is interesting, people will discuss it, even if it is a Vanity or a blog post.
It is interesting to me that FR, which has been in the vanguard of personal journalism and predates the blogger revolution, has such a low opinion of blogs. A lot of good news is broken in blogs these days, and it is shuffled off into the Blogger/Personal Memory Hole, and FR must ignore it until it is picked up by a "legitimate" news source. I like it better when things are wide open, and we are allowed to sort the wheat from the chaff ourselves.
Hey, AM's how about a personal setting where we can set our own screen to ignore the sidebar classifications? I would click that button!
I admire what Jim has done for all of us, but nevertheless, it doesn't make any maddog sense to bust people for breaking rules that change from moment to moment. Excuuuuse me for telling the truth!
Are you kidding me? This is the primaries and I welcome these fist-fights. Conservatives need a good old-fashioned battle royale after the 8 years of center-right BS we've gotten from Bush and the pre-2006 GOP Congress. Hell, I'm a Paul supporter and I don't even mind the discussions over his foreign policy. The photo-shopped pics and outright lies are disingenuous, but hey, c'est la vie.
LOL. I normally can’t stand Luckovich but that cartoon is one of his best.
You're excused... (backing off slowly...)
Hey, I enjoy a good policy fist-fight as much as the next guy. So long as we’re all able to shake hands at the end of the day and fall in behind the nominee, it’s all good.
The problem is when we get into the vicious cat-fights, calling Romney a liar or implying (with no basis) that Thompson cheats on his wife. It is hard to shake hands after that sort of thing.
Our fights should be over immigration and defense and taxes and dumb-ass plans to nationalize health-care. Those are animating struggles that make us stronger and refine our positions.
Post filth like that, and you will receive the appropriate response, madam.
You have to cut the Romneyites some slack ... they’re full of bitterness that Fred is taking the show and Romney is fading.
I refer you to a recent article titled “Tennessee Stud: Thompson’s Womanising Ways.” It’s out there, and I didn’t put it out there. If it’s sleazy, it’s his sleaze.
The title of the article is nothing but a hit piece of dubious credibility.
You remind me of a child walking his pet on the street. The pet defecates on the sidewalk. Rather than dispose of it in the trash, the child then picks up the scat and throws it at a well-dressed adult passer-by. The horrified adult asks the child, “Why did you throw that at me ?” The child says, “Well, don’t blame me, it’s not mine. It was already there.”
Your repeating unproven sleazy allegations doesn’t speak well for you, madam.
Did you even read the article?
I repeat, I did not make the allegations. They are out there. Some of the article is asserted as fact, without qualification. They wouldn’t dare do that if they weren’t pretty darn sure it was true. And there haven’t been any denials from the Thompson camp.
That isn’t the first place I’ve seen those particular allegations regarding Fred’s basically amoral behavior as a single man. I guess you think that’s okay. But, he has admitted that in other places.
A mistress doesn’t necessarily have to be carrying on with a married man. Actually, the real qualifier is whether he was supporting her. I think Mosbacher has a lot of money of her own. So maybe “former bed partner” is a better description. Does that make you feel better?
There are quotes from Fred’s first wife’s brother, strongly implying that the first marriage broke up because of adultery. If that weren’t so, the brother simply would have answered “No.” Again, there are no refutations of these quotes.
The stuff about his wife has been printed in other places, not just this article.
Look, maybe none of this will make a difference. Maybe the two of them can carry the “family values” banner along with their baggage.
But, we shouldn’t bury our heads in the sand and act as if it isn’t out there.
For the record, your snarling accusation notwithstanding, I am not a Romney supporter.
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.