Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Posted on 10/13/2007 5:27:28 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Used to be, you didn't need a scorecard to read a column written by a conservative pundit. But then along came Election 2008 two years early, and now you have to read 'em with a grain of salt. No, better make that a pound of salt.
Take Jennifer Rubin (please). She's regularly thrashed Fred Thompson for months in the American Spectator's AmSpec blog. And in a recent post on Race 4 2008, she explains that it's not just the NY Times that is bashing Thompson, but points to pundits David Frum, Robert Novak and George Will as conservatives who have been critical of the former Senator. What she fails to mention is that all three of those writers, plus Rubin herself, have their own horses in the race. More on that just a few paragraphs down.
Although Rubin is a regular at the conservative Spectator and is also published at Human Events, she wrote a piece for the liberal New York Observer titled Five Easy Arguments Against Fred Thompson.
That was not the first time Rubin has been helpful to the Democats in trying to take down Thompson. She has, in fact, been showing her anti-Frederalist bias since long before the big guy officially entered the presidential race. In an analysis for ABC News written last summer about Fred Thompson's testing-the-waters-campaign, she opined, "Thompson appears to have gone well beyond the limits imposed by federal law." Just a month later, former Democrat Party staff member Lane Hudson filed his FEC Complaint against Fred. Hudson, you may remember, is the liberal blogger who exposed the Mark Foley scandal. Never mind that Fred's testing-the-waters campaign had hired a former FEC chairman to advise them on precisely what it could and could not do under the law, quarterback Rubin felt the need to get something started, and the Democrats took the handoff and ran with it.
In another ABC article on Thompson from last spring, she harped on the "lazy" meme, saying that the charge translates into "speculation that maybe he will be a less committed and focused candidate, unwilling or unaware of the demands of the campaign." Gotta spread those DNC talking points, doncha know.
Indeed, one is led to ask, "Who's side is she on?" Rudy Giuliani's, actually. Rubin never has a harsh word for Hizzoner, and she sings his praises in forte voice. How about the trio she mentioned in the Race 4 2008 post? Novak has recently let it be known that he thinks Ron Paul would make a fine president; George Will is for any subcomponent of Rudy McRomney; and John Fund is backing Rudy. As a matter of fact, Fund has gone one step further and hired on with the Giulini campaign.
These four are not the only pundits who have jumped on various candidates' bandwagons early. Rich Lowry and Deroy Murdock at NRO are very Rudy-friendly. Townhall.com's Hugh Hewitt is shamelessly pro-Romney, and Michael Medved, also from Townhall, often expresses his great admiration for John McCain.
The problem is, not a one of these pundits will include a disclaimer in their columns informing the reader of which dog they have in the hunt, although Hewitt will at least tell you that he has written Romney's biography. You have to read a number of their columns before you realize that they have few unkind words to say about Candidate A and are almost always critical of Candidate B.
They should all take a lesson from John Hawkins, blogmeister of Right Wing News. Hawkins worked as a consultant to the Duncan Hunter campaign for a few months, and he took great pains to point out that fact with every post he made in which he expressed his opinion of a competing candidate. Hawkins even posted disclaimers about his former relationship with the Hunter campaign long after his relationship with Hunter's campaign was severed. Bloggers, in general, have been much more up front than their counterparts in the old media about which candidates they support in the presidential sweepstakes.
So the next time you read a piece in the conservative media telling you that Fred Thompson has surely blown it this time and that his campaign may not be long for this world, consider the source and consider which candidate that source would like to see as the GOP nominee at the next Republican presidential convention. Also consider that most voters, unlike us political junkies, never read a word of what the pundits write, and these are the people who have placed Fred Thompson solidly in second place in all the polls.
Thanks for this post. I have noticed most of the bias from these columnists already, but it needs to be exposed and often. Shine the light on it.
I would also add that Mark Levin, a real stalwart and a cons titutionalist without peer who speaks very admiringly of Fred, does not hide the fact (as he says) that he “is leaning toward Thompson.” He has not committed, but it is not hard to tell just by listening to him, particularly because of his devotion to the Constitution, that Fred is the best fit.
If I could get through to him, I would ask him to analyze Romney’s implementation of the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts from a constitutional (i.e.-separation of powers) perspective. Even though not a federal constitutional issue, it provides some insight into how Romney views the Constitution and the relationship of the Branches, especially the power of the judiciary.
“Although Rubin is a regular at the conservative Spectator and is also published at Human Events, she wrote a piece for the liberal New York Observer titled Five Easy Arguments Against Fred Thompson.”
These are the same “conservatives” on the forum pushing that abortionist, Guiliani.
Conspicuously absent on your list of pundits in this excellently and gratifying-to-read piece: Rush Limbaugh. Good ol’ Rush. God bless him. Or rather, God blessed us with Rush. And with you, Sturm, by the by way, and Doug from Upland, and Jim Robinson, and a whole lotta other wonderful folks here.
Conspicuously absent on your list of pundits in this excellently written and gratifying-to-read piece: Rush Limbaugh. Good ol’ Rush. God bless him. Or rather, God blessed us with Rush. And with you, Sturm, by the by way, and Doug from Upland, and Jim Robinson, and a whole lotta other wonderful folks here.
Conspicuously absent on your list of pundits in this excellently written and gratifying-to-read piece: Rush Limbaugh. Good ol’ Rush. God bless him. Or rather, God blessed us with Rush. And with you, Sturm, by the by way, and Doug from Upland, and Jim Robinson, and a whole lotta other wonderful folks here.
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.