WaPo’s Colbert King; Thompson’s no DC outsider
A few days ago I wrote that the Leftist media has been busy digging up dirt on Fred Thompson in an effort to derail his campaign before it gets off the ground. I have one rule when it comes to voting – I don’t let the opposition tell me what’s wrong with my candidate or which candidate I should support.
When John McCain was running in 2000, the media told me that he was a uniter, that his support crossed party lines – that made me suspicious. Sure enough, McCain started hammering the Bush taxcuts in South Carolina. I suspect that the media wanted McCain to win the primaries because he was the easier candidate for Gore to beat in the general election because of his involvement in the S&L scandal.
This year, the media has chosen the least likely to win candidate, Ron Paul (oh-oh, here come the nutjobs), to label the most likely to draw voters from both parties. And since Thompson is the biggest threat to any Democrat candidate (seein’s how Clinton is awash in campaign scandals, Obama is a foreign policy babe-in-the-woods and Edwards is a Class A hypocrite), the Washington Post, in the person of Colbert King has begun launching their attacks on Thompson’s Washington outsider personae;
Far be it from me to start trouble, but former Tennessee Republican senator Fred Thompson, the presidential candidate who portrays himself as a conservative outsider capable of reforming Washington, is playing down his kinship with this town. Thompson may campaign as a steadfast son of the South, but he is really one of us.
In fact, no other White House hopeful, Republican or Democrat, can come close to matching Thompson’s insider credentials. He alone among the contenders has managed to reach the pinnacle of Washington influence: the presidency of the Federal City Council, a powerful, behind-the-scenes group comprising a who’s who of this city’s top business, professional and civic leaders. The Federal City Council is synonymous with the Washington establishment, and Thompson was its chosen leader from 2003 to 2005.
Yeah, far be it from anyone on the Washington Post to start trouble where there is none. That’s never happened before has it? Like the William Arkin incident a few months ago (he occasionally stops by here to see if I still don’t like him – I don’t Willy), or the Walter Reed “scandal”, ya know idiot stuff like that.
King goes on to question Thompson’s down-home style;
No doubt, Thompson, a native of Sheffield, Ala., knows his way around the hills and valleys of the Bible Belt and Appalachia. But he’s also a man of McLean, the upscale Virginia community just across the Potomac.
He may charm rural America with his drawl and “aw, shucks” manner, but we know better.
What do you “know better”, Colbert? Davy Crockett served in Congress for 12 non-consecutive years – are you going to question Davy Crockett’s “aw, shucks” manners, too? I haven’t heard the Leftist media question Al Gore’s “aw shucks” manners when he born and raised in a DC hotel room.
Now, the most disingenuous part of King’s WaPo column;
Thompson should raise his hand if that mammoth federal institution, home to more than 200,000 workers and 22 agencies — the largest bureaucratic merger since the creation of Defense Department in 1947 — is ever asked, “Who’s your daddy?” Or at least he should admit to having had something to do with its birth.
‘Tis true that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman initially proposed creation of a Homeland Security Department shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. President Bush objected to the proposal. The idea nonetheless gained Democratic backing in the Lieberman-chaired Senate Government Operations Committee. Bush finally came around with a proposal of his own, but the Senate deadlocked. In 2002, with the Senate session drawing to a close, the homeland security bill was on life support.
Enter, stage right: Fred Thompson and the GOP takeover of the Senate in the fall elections.
Mr. King, go back and check the WaPo editorials of the period – the Washington Post editorial board urged President Bush to make the Homeland Security Office a federal Agency, along with Democrats, to make operations available for Congressional oversight – in other words, so Congressional Democrats could waggle their fingers in the faces of more Bush appointees on camera. So they really shouldn’t lay the Homeland Security Department at Thompson’s feet – especially since he’s been out of the Senate since January 2003 and the Department was established in November 2002. I find it hard to believe that anyone could blame Thompson who served in the Senate two months (two holiday-heavy months) while the HSD was in operation.
I’ll bet cash money that King has never pulled a lever for a Republican, nor probably, has any member of the Washington Post staff, so they should really concern themselves with their Democrat candidates, who seem mired in problems of their own making, and stop involving themselves, and embarrassingly so, in Republican politics.
As a long-time Republican who sees Fred Thompson as our best bet, the subject WaPo article partially raised an eyebrow and triggered a mental note to do some research soon. The reply to the article, however, is making me wonder whether I should forget about the research all together and just move on to another Republican candidate.
Jonn Lilyea wrote: Thanks for your comment. Could you be more specific. What could this humble blogger say that would affect your decision on such an important vote? I think my main point, if you read my piece earlier in the week was that I don’t pay much attention to partisan opposition sources when considering my support for a candidate. I consider the Washington Post and Mr. King to be partisan opposition sources. If they haven’t made that clear in the past seven (or thirtyfour) years to a “long time Republican” like yourself, I don’t know how they could make it clear now. If for one minute I thought anything I wrote would offend a “long time Republican” like yourself, I’d have pulled up short. But I don’t see were anything I wrote would offend a “long time Republican”.
I think Ol’ Fred makes a GREAT candidate for the GOP. After all, he accomplished absolutely nothing in his six years in the Senate, either for the folks back home, or for the nation. Yep! Zip! Zero! Nada! Name me the piece of legislation that bears his name as sponsor or co-sponsor. Name me the issue he cared enough about to exert himself for. So, if there is gonna be a Republican running, I , for one, prefer the one who has done the least damage to the country – so far. I think that back where Ol’ Fred comes from, the words for him are: All hat, no cattle. Sorry, but we’ve already been through six devastating years of that. Turns out the guy more of us “wanted to have a beer with” wasn’t all that good for the country. Thanks, “Liberal Media”! Some of us are actually nostalgic for the eight years of peace, prosperity and worldwide respect and love America enjoyed with Bill Clinton.
Jonn Lilyea wrote: All hat, no cattle, huh? Please tell me what Bill Clinton did to make you so nostalgic. And please don’t mention things the Republican Congress had to drag out of him. That leaves NAFTA, the ’93 tax hike and a $500/child tax credit. Pretty pathetic eight-year record I’d say.
I predict that when F. Thompson fails to catch fire–which he will because the last thing most people alive want is another “symbolical”-talking weasel who’s More Bush Than Bush–the shadow people behind the man behind the curtain will scurry about to line up another potential candidate, who will be even worse than Fred. A lobbyist is a lobbyist is a lobbyist. Period.
Jonn wrote: Geez, with all of these negative comments about Thompson just a few days after he announced, maybe I should change my candidate support. Naw, sorry, just kidding. IÂ couldn’t resist.
But all of you guys are good at being AGAINST a candidate. I wonder who you think is a viable alternative. Who is better? Is there someone running that I don’t know about – someone who could actually be elected. According to your website, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are your heroes – and you complain about lobbyists? I find that a bit hypocritical, don’t you?
I figure folks like you are just afraid of Fred Thompson and that’s why you’re amplifying his negatives. That’s why I think Thompson can beat you guys and you know it. Apparently WaPo knows it, too.
OK – here’s your one word answer: SUPRPUS. Can you remember back that far, to the good old days when the President actually worked WITH congress and they produced a budget surplus in the trillions of dollars? It all began with that Clinton 1993 tax hike you mentioned, which not ONE Republican voted for. (Phil Gramm insisted it would send the economy into recession, or maybe a depression. Oops!) And, by the way, congratulations on your success if that tax hike touched you, ’cause it only impacted people making more than $150,000 per year, a whole lotta money in 1993. “To whom much is given, of them much is required…” Jonn wrote: Well, it did impact me and I was the father of three teenagers, enrolled in college and my wife and I were each working minimum wage jobs (I had two jobs and full time class load). It impacted me so badly that I just got out of debt with the IRS in 2002. Don’t tell me what I went through, please. I know what the talking points memos say – I don’t need you to regurgitate them. If the tax hike only affected people with over $150,000 of income, why the was the taxable amount of Social Security recipients’ benefits increased from 50% to 85%? Were they making over $150k? Even the social security recipients who died in 1993 before the President signed the tax hike paid the increased amount. Did anyone bother to put that in your talking points memo? Your prized “surplus” was a year-over-year surplus – not a budget surplus of trillions like you claimed. And there should have been a surplus since we were all being overtaxed and there was wasn’t a war (that we knew about). There wouldn’t have been a surplus if Clinton and his wife had their way on Healthcare, would there? The surplus was created from cutting defense and intelligence spending and we’re paying for it now – in more ways than one (that’s what Carter did, too – causing Reagan to expand the debt to rebuild our defenses – just like George W Bush did). I remember running out of cruise… Read more »
I think we know old Fred pretty well. He has abandoned three children and dated some pretty serious chicks, since. Wonder if, like Reagan, he calls his new wife “mommie”? The “conservative” frontrunners have, between them, abandoned 6. When Gingrich comes in the number will jump to 8. Wonderful leadership your right wingers are following into a brave new world of personal responsibility and moral rectitude. (Gag!)
John
Jonn wrote: Funny how you left wingers get all concerned about morals and personal responsibility when you’re discussing Republicans, but somehow the morals of your own party’s leaders are forbidden ground. Just like your sudden interest in a balanced budget.
Yeah, dating some “serious chicks” is a reason to vote against a candidate. (Gag!)
Damn John, WTF are all the socialists doing over here? If I wanted to read that crap, I’d go to KOS or HUFFPO 🙂
You must have a tremendous patience factor.
Jonn wrote; Meh! It’s like shooting fish in a barrel – they’re always so predictable and their knowledge on any subject is shallow. It’s a good way to get in shape for next weekend.
John, obviously you and Fred both seem to hit a nerve with liberals.
They’re almost cute when they are scared!
Keep up the great blog-work!
Jonn wrote: Thanks for the compliment. Don’t forget to tell all of your friends.
Well, John, you are entitled to your opinion, but you’re NOT entitled to your own facts. It is not possible that a couple working low-wages jobs was impacted by the 1993 tax hike. It targeted individuals making over $150,000 and couples making over $300,000. So, the most charitable conclusion I can draw from your post is that you were “mistaken”. Of course, I don’t believe that at all, as we have had 15 years of Republicans making up “facts” to suit the spin of the day. Social security taxes went up in the 1980s by a bi-partisan agreement of George I and the Dem. congress. Remember how you upper class guys screamed at him for violating his promise of “no new taxes”? Well, those taxes were necessary to stave off the collapse of the SS fund. Maybe those are the taxes you’re thinking of. Nothing to do with President Clinton. Bottom line: Clinton raised taxes on the rich and the economy created 21 MILLION jobs that helped people climb up from poverty to the middle class, or from the middle class to even better. Bush gave tax CUTS to the rich, and thinks we should celebrate the creation of 8 million jobs. Hell, Clinton could have done that with one (financial) hand tied behind his back. In fact, he did do it with not ONE republican voting for his budget. Thank God we had a Democratic majority on the Hill to help us middle-class folks. You go out and ask anyone other than the top .01% of income (who did damn well under Clinton even with the tax raise)if they did better in the 1990s than they have done for the last 6 years. But you won’t do that because the facts are inconvenient to the storyline you have adopted. I’m no “socialist”, just a believer that if the laws and regulations and stability of the country have enabled some to do obscenely well, those people have an obligation to contribute a little more to the common good. Tax CUTS at a time of war are insane. But, I guess,… Read more »