Posted on 01/03/2008 1:49:08 PM PST by bd476
Lets see now who has the most money and who has the most to lose?Romney is the rino and Thompson is the conservative.I dont think its that far of a stretch.This was expensive to pull off.It has romney written all over it.
Fred,like other Republican senators,gave McCain an sop on CFR—the Arizona sob is a mean scary bully and hard to resist(much like LBJ was).They didn’t believe Bush would really sign the abomination or that SCOTUS would actually uphold it.
Bad judgements all around,but Fred is still 90% Reagan conservative—only Duncan Hunter rates higher.
It doesn’t “have Romney written all over it”. There are any number of politically motivated people in Iowa or the country at large that could have planted the rumor. Or it may be a fabrication by the Politico.
Fred has also said, several times since, that supporting CFR waw a mistake pure and simple. I’ll cut him some slack on this issue. McInsane still thinks CFR didn’t go far enough...I’ll cut him a fart.
Romney planted this story.
It only makes sense.
The issue is NOT Thompson supporters coming to Romney. The issue is Romney supporters finding Thompson more attractive. This will be a particular problem in SCarolina and Florida.
In many ways, it’s a logical statement. Thompson does poorly in Iowa, may be low on money, and doesn’t want to get embarrassed in the coming primaries, drops out with an endorsement for McCain, and gets lauded for giving it his best shot. I think, however, no matter how poorly Thompson does in IA, that he will continue on to SC. If he does poorly there, then he will quit and endorse McCain...
I agree. Basically Thompson is taking the same policy positions as Romney (minus the socialized medicine), only when Thompson says it, he's not lying.
“Fred,like other Republican senators,gave McCain an sop on CFR—the Arizona sob is a mean scary bully and hard to resist(much like LBJ was).”
Fred likes McCain to this day, and agreed w/McCain when CFR was passed. He now (flip flopping?) is singing a slightly different tune regarding CFR. How about this one (RINO position?): [from Wash. Post, July 2007]
“Thompson defied Republican orthodoxy almost as soon as he arrived in Washington in 1995 as a freshman senator. Having just regained control of Congress, the party was pursuing the agenda it had set out in the Contract With America.
That included proposals to limit the ability of lawyers to bring lawsuits, cap the size of damages that could be won and limit the fees that lawyers could earn in civil cases. “This is the only provision in the Contract With America that goes against our basic philosophy,” he declared at the time.
Thompson broke with his party during the early debate to vote against several provisions. One would have required attorneys to tell clients that they were entitled to an upfront estimate of their legal fees and another that would have limited attorneys’ fees.
He eventually joined Republicans in approving moderate new restrictions on product-liability lawsuits — but only after several tougher provisions opposed by lawyers and consumer groups were stripped.
Thompson justified his vote on the grounds that products crossing state lines fall under the federal government’s regulation of interstate commerce. But he continued to strongly oppose efforts to put limits on medical malpractice awards in states, at times citing stories of victims such as a 5-year-old girl who died after having her tonsils taken out.
In 1998, Thompson voted against a plan offered by Republicans that would have limited to $250 per hour the amount that lawyers could charge in tobacco lawsuits. He voted against similar curbs for lawyer fees in death-penalty cases, medical-malpractice cases and drug-patent litigation.,,,”
So what. I don't believe in price controls on anything. If a lawyer can get 200 or 400 or 1000 or more an hour, then shouldn't that be between the buyer and the seller.
Government price controls are government price controls no matter which profession you're talking about.
“So what. I don’t believe in price controls on anything. If a lawyer can get 200 or 400 or 1000 or more an hour, then shouldn’t that be between the buyer and the seller.”
You must be a lawyer, and if you aren’t, I hope for your sake you don’t have to hire one someday.
“Government price controls are government price controls no matter which profession you’re talking about.”
By the way, you totally miss the point. The point is that lawyers were and still are charging outlandish fees when they know they are going up against what they see as deep pockets in class action suits, such as against the tobacco industries. They strike gold, and the alleged “victims” get next to nothing. I’m sure you know thi, and if you don’t, you aren’t the brightest bulb in the pack. Often, it is the taxpayer who’s pockets the trial lawyers are picking, when they go after gov’t entities, like old schools w/asbestos problems as an example. All the enviro-whacko lawsuits, the land use lawsuits out West, etc. So you and I end up enriching these shysters. Think before you speak.
What a silly statement.
I want to hire the best one. And the best one will be available at a higher price than the worst one.
Price controls are a violation of a free market whether for lawyers or for cars.
Why don't we require GM & Ford to sell ALL cars for $10,000? It's the same thing.
BTW, if you answer this wrong, then you have no idea what free market conservatism is.
No way could I vote for Rudy McHuckster even with a clothespin on my nose.
The vitrol aimed against Mitt here is totally unjustified. He did a reasonably good, though not spectacular, job as governor of a hopelessly Lieberal state for four short years and earned his money in the private sector before that. Rudy McHuckster can't even come close.
There’s a contract, ma’am.
The terms are spelled out. No one has to sign it.
They can go get less competent lawyers who charge less money.
He HAS to win NH in order to have a chance in SC, and coming in behind Thompson (and possibly Paul) would be a deathkneel for him. And yes, I agree with you about his "intemperateness". He never forgets a slight.
Look at how he paid Bush back for the "supposed" dirty tricks in SC 8 yrs ago.. He went after the Republican agenda for 8 yrs just to get his revenge on Bush! Is this guy mcinsane, or what?
“Price controls are a violation of a free market whether for lawyers or for cars.”
Yeah, you’re the kind who would allow gas station owners to gouge the public during the aftermath of a hurricane, because it’s whatever the market will bear.
Trust me, if xzins ever needs a lawyer he's got several freepers who will be more than happy to represent him for free.
How's that for "price control"?
It’s his gas station. No one says you have to buy gas there.
In fact, though, if Gas Station X raises their price to $6 per gallon, and that causes people to buy just enough to get to the next station a hundred miles (5 gallons?) up the road in northern Louisiana, then they are doing a service by rationing and thereby enabling more people to get out of town.
Gas station Y keeps their price at $2 per gallon and some get to fill up at that price and gas gets to roughly one third to one fourth the number of people.
Letting the market decide the rate puts market rationality into the equation.
LOL. You apparently have no clue about how price serves to regulate supply and demand.
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.