Posted on 09/12/2007 3:49:22 AM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
I disagree with Ron Paul on the issues. A healthy debate on the issues is appropriate and altogether good. The 11th Commandment is a ban on personal attacks and smears, IMHO, like the Phony Fred fiasco.
Ron Paul is wrong on the War, which is the central issue of our times. It is not an attack to say so. There is no reason to pretend that he is an acceptable candidate out of politeness, when he is so very and irretrievably wrong.
I agree with you. However, I’m not sure the attacks are confined to his position on the war, but then I don’t watch the silly “debates”, either. Another poster above describes the same treatment of Rudy. I didn’t select Paul as someone for whom I am a proponent, just someone who might be an example, from the quotes I’ve read, of the object of an exception to the Commandment.
Fluff, in other words. Where is the hard evidence?
You're arguing that perception is a pragmatic reality - which it is in politics - but it's not truth. To fan these flames without hard evidence is dishonest.
According to your logic, when the Republican nominee is determined and the MSM unloads on them with scores of anti-Republican articles, I should listen to them 'because of the shear quantity of articles'.
After 6 years of Bush (God bless him) ‘turning the other cheek’ no matter what filth, lies, dirty tricks, name-calling, etc. the libs have thrown at him, I’m GLAD to see a candidate who will stake out his turf, stand up for himself, and throw a well-placed punch back. As for this story itself - not earth shattering but hanging around the candidate like a bad smell ......Mitt’s ‘Macaca Moment’?
I will agree that people, even here at FR, tend to go for the personal attack instead of rebuting a candidates position. FWIW, I find that sort of thing less here than in most places. In any case, such attacks are always unpersuasive, and can be handily ignored.
1. He will not let himself be buffaloed into announcing on Hillary!'s timetable,
2. He will not shy away from voicing core conservative positions, and
3. He will not take a punch without landing a punch in response.
I am liking this guy more and more all the time!
Don’t these people have any real issues to discuss, or policy to put forward, or money to raise, or something to do other than whining.
Meanwhile, it’s hard to put something behind you if people don’t care about the truth and are willing to lie and make claims without evidence.
Before this was tied to Donehue, BFFT blamed first Rudy Giuliani’s camp (complete with a trash piece on one of his campaign staff), and then Tompkins (complete with a trash piece on Tompkins).
Now that it turns out the blog was written be someone else, rather than apologize for trashing two men who had nothing to do with it, they are simply ignoring the facts.
Meanwhile, the first day this was smart politics, pointing out the negative campaigning.
The third day, it’s whining, like your candidate can’t take anybody telling the truth about his past.
Fred Thompson, please — stand up, dismiss these people, and refocus on the issues. That’s why we loved the idea of you getting into the race — you were supposed to be the great communicator of the conservative message.
The conservative message is most certainly not “Waah Waah Waah my opponent said bad things about me that’s not fair waah waah waah”. Especially when it isn’t true. Victimhood doesn’t become you.
You mention the 11th commandment to attack a republican, in a post about another campaign attacking a fellow republican, and you DON’T see how that’s a bit hypocritical?
To democrats, playing dirty is telling the truth about them.
I hope that never becomes the case with republicans.
YOu guys apologize to Rudy yet for accusing HIM of this attack?
I had another FredHead tell me that opinion was what was important, and that the story must be true because there were stories about it in the news.
Let’s see. Female poster-—Mitt supporter.
So far as I can tell, Fred Thompson has not himself made ANY comments about this.
So I don’t think we should smear him with the childish antics of a bunch of bloggers who think perception trumps reality.
It is one thing to rebut another Republican's positions or to criticize him for his actions. It is another thing to smear him personally.
You may see it as a distinction without a difference, but from my point of view, Reagan's 11th Commandment is a bar on personal attacks and smears. It does not mean we should permit bad behavior.
I model the appropriate relationship amongst Republicans on a well-functioning family. When one family member messes up, it is completely appropriate for the other family members to tell him he is messing up and to help him correct his behavior through constructive criticism. It is not appropriate to berate and belittle that family member out of anger or spite, and certainly not appropriate to go bad-mouthing him to the neighbors.
I am not saying the Mitt Romney is a bad person or would be a bad President. If he were the Republican nominee, I would vote for him over any Democrat in the field. But I do not condone sleazy practices like running the Phony Fred web-site at arm's length. We all make mistakes. Mitt Romney should be careful not to make this one again.
Mitt’s problem here is that he did not do the web site, and did not approve of the web site. So, because he’s an honest guy, he had to say he didn’t approve of it, and had nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately, people don’t trust politicians, and the truth sometimes isn’t the best political response.
What the bloggersforfred people don’t understand is that if Mitt Romney actually decided to attack Fred for Fred’s past, he would have put the blog up himself, and when asked about it he would have taken CREDIT for it.
IN all the comments about the defunct blog, one word has been missing from the Thompson supporters who are complaining about it: “False”.
The closest I’ve heard to anybody claiming anything on the blog was not accurate is that one guy said that Thompson didn’t have to chase skirts, because the girls chased him and he let them catch him.
If this was Rudy Giuliani’s site, there’d be almost no story, because he has a reputation for attacking opponents. The only story here exists because Mitt Romney is KNOWN to be a different kind of politician.
Fred Thompson was ALSO known to be a different kind of politician. Let’s hope his supporters don’t ruin that for him before he gets started.
Every day that Fred’s people attack Mitt’s people is a day that puts a smile on Hillary’s face.
The Fred supporters are calling Mitt a liar, with no evidence.
Mitt’s camp denounced the site, I’ve seen the quotes. Both he and his paid advisor have SAID they had nothing to do with it. The guy who DID the site says they had nothing to do with it.
I didn’t fault the Thompson camp for the first day of attacks. They were reasonable attacks against an attack site.
I only started attacking them when they continued attacking Romney the 2nd day after he did everything he could do about it, after he said he had nothing to do with the site, and the site was gone.
Now it’s not about pointing out “bad behavior” against Thompson, it’s about impugning the character of Mitt, about a PERSONAL ATTACK on his integrity and honesty.
Fred’s campaign manager called Mitt Romney a liar. Frankly, he probably should be dismissed from the campaign, because he had no evidence for this claim.
And I think in general that if your campaign is going to call a candidate a liar, you aught to have your CANDIDATE stand up and do it, not hide behind surrogates.
But that’s just me, and I’m not CALLING for anybody to resign from either camp (I was ready to push for Tompkins to resign when I believed the initial Washington Post story — stupid me, believing the post, but some FredHeads can’t get over that).
But Donehue can’t “resign” or be fired because he’s not with the campaign. Donehue didn’t do anything criminal or unethical (we have our own “attack-republican” site right here for the republicans WE don’t like), and there’s no way Tompkins should dissolve a BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP over something like this.
The fact is, the perception remained after the 1st day. Nothing much Mitt can do about it.
But it is dishonest to continue to blog or be quoted as having evidence Mitt was actually involved, or to call him a liar over it.
That kind of rhetoric makes people who like Mitt mad, and frankly makes other conservatives who want to talk about issues mad. It may be “good politics”, but many of us are sick of politics, it’s how we end up with politicians who hire prostitutes, who think it’s better to plead guilty to keep their jobs, who take bribes and kickbacks, and who generally are morally challenged.
Fred Thompson was the candidate to rise above this (although Mitt wasn’t bad at that rising above stuff either). What started three days ago as a good thing for Fred now is making him look like just another politician.
Meanwhile, while Fred is making a 3-day story about a web site that existed only for a moment, the DNC is running an official web site attacking Mitt Romney. It’s still there. Mitt isn’t whining about it every day, he made the comment and moved on.
And none of the people attacking Romney for the 3rd day for a site he had nothing to do with and which is gone are running such continuous attacks on the Democrats for running a web site attacking a republican.
Why is anyone surprised? Politics is dirty, dirty, business. In ‘88 Pat Robertson’s people acted every way except “Christian”.
Get behind the scenes and see just how scummy people in the political arena can be; and it’s in both parties and in the camp of every candidate. If you think Romney’s folks are low-life, check out Giuliani’s thugs and Hillary’s demon-possessed witches, snitches and bitches.
The only people lower than politicians are used car salesmen. No, I take that back. None is lower than politicians. My apologies to used car salesmen.
For instance, if the facts bear out that Mitt Romney genuinely had nothing to do with the Phony Fred web-site, I will be able to apologize for my error and stand by my statements that Mitt Romney is a good man and I will be happy to vote for him for President, when and if the time comes.
So, at this point it is a factual question, which should be explored dispassionately.
Since it appears that you hold Fred responsible for what his supporters do, I presume you also hold Mitt responsible for things those working in his campaign do, such as putting this website together.
It also seems clear that you think one candidate mocking another is okay. Therefore, I'm quite sure you wouldn't have a problem with a Fred supporter putting together a website mocking Mitt on his faith. (After all, some jokes just write themselves.)
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.