ABC's Stephanopoulos Labels Fred Thompson a 'Hit Man'

ABC's Stephanopoulos Labels Fred Thompson a 'Hit Man'

By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
January 11, 2008 - 12:10 ET

ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos derided GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson as a "hit man" on Friday's "Good Morning America." Appearing on the program to discuss the previous night's Republican presidential debate, he alleged, "Well, [Fred Thompson has] never played a hit man, I think, in the movies or television. But he's taken on that role in the last two debates."

Stephanopoulos then promoted a conspiracy theory to GMA co-host Diane Sawyer. According to the former Clinton aide, Thompson vigorously attacked fellow Republican contender Mike Huckabee during the debate as a way to secretly help Senator John McCain's candidacy. Stephanopoulos speculated, "Before Fred Thompson got into this race, he's a close friend of John McCain. He was chairman of John McCain's campaign...So, I think what he's calculating is, 'Listen, if this can help me, great. If not, I'm going to go out helping John McCain.'"

Over on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," host Joe Scarborough slammed Thompson along similar lines, though in much harsher language.

A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:09am on January 11, follows:

DIANE SAWYER: Michigan, a must-win for Governor Romney by most accounts. Let's turn to our chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos for the bottom line. But, George, I want to show everybody the latest national poll in which Governor Romney is trailing both Governor Huckabee and John McCain. And, again, last night it seemed he had to vault himself out of the pack in the debate. Did he do it?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Uh, not exactly. Although, he had one core strategy last night and that was to speak to Michigan, not to South Carolina. It started in his first answer right out of the box. He talked about economic stresses in the state of Michigan. Took a shot at John McCain who had said that some of those jobs that are being lost in Michigan are not going to come back. McCain didn't back down at all, but it was a good moment for Romney.

SAWYER: And I want to tell everybody a little bit more about Senator Fred Thompson, because we heard Jake say that it was a big night for him, a good night for him. I want to show a clip here of Governor Thompson on his game.

[Clip begins]

FRED THOMPSON: He said he would sign a bill that banned smoking nationwide, so much for federalism. So much for state's rights. So much for individual rights. That's not the model of Reagan coalition, that's a model of a Democratic Party.

BRIT HUME: Governor Huckabee, you've got 30--

MIKE HUCKABEE: The Air Force has a saying that says if you're not catching the flak, you not over the target. I'm catching the flak; I must be over the target.

[Clip ends]

SAWYER: So, what did you think?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, Fred Thompson-- Well, he's never played a hit man, I think, in the movies or television. But he's taken on that role in the last two debates. Last Saturday night, he went after Mitt Romney in, in, in New Hampshire. Last night, going after Mike Huckabee. Now, obviously, he sees Huckabee as his strongest opponent in South Carolina. But I think something else is going on here, Diane. Before Fred Thompson got into this race, he's a close friend of John McCain. He was a chairman of John McCain's campaign. In each of these last two debates, he's gone after McCain's toughest opponent in the states coming up. So, I think what he's calculating is, "Listen, if this can help me, great. If not, I'm going to go out helping John McCain."

SAWYER: Okay, let's switch now to the Democrats. Because, as we know, John Kerry, Senator John Kerry, former candidate, endorsed Barack Obama yesterday. And he had his running mate right there watching. John Edwards was watching. But I gather he never got through to him to tell him personally that he was going to do that. And we all remember the footage of the two of them when they were on the campaign trail. Those embraces that we saw all of the time. What's going on here?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know what? You can't always believe those pictures. There was a fair amount of tension between John Kerry and John Edwards during the campaign. Edwards was pushing Kerry on strategy. Thought he should be tougher and more aggressive. And John Kerry got very angry with Edwards after the campaign. He believed that he had a promise from John Edwards not to run in 2008 if Kerry was going to decide to run. Instead, Edwards went full bore out on his own. The relationship got worse and worse and worse. They don't like each other at all. We saw the fruit of it yesterday.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Just like a bunch of scared

January 11, 2008 - 12:13 ET by USA4freedom

Just like a bunch of scared rabbets.

The more I see it the more I love it!!!

Go Fred Go!!!

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

Steffie

January 11, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Prester John

Must have read today's New York Slimes.

PJ... Speaking of the

January 11, 2008 - 12:38 ET by bigtimer

PJ...

Speaking of the NYSlimes...Fred got a good one in on that tripe of a fishwrap last night too....lol!

What I see

January 11, 2008 - 12:19 ET by OldSailor88

This is twice today in the MSM and this looks to me like a concerted effort to go after Fred. He scares the hell out of the left, and I believe that's why his campaign has been;

a) Ignored

b) Slandered- By leaking news that he was quitting, and now

c) Attacked because he's an extremely electable candidate

If fred is the Republican Nominee in November, the Dems are hurtin' for certain.

Faciem durum cacantis habes

Did a memo go out to the

January 11, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Pete Wilson

Did a memo go out to the networks last night? Joe Scarborough and Stephy are uttering the same words.
I do not for a moment think that Fred Thompson would be doing McCains work for him. I really believe that Fred sees Huckabee as a target for votes, and is going after those votes, which, of course, is exactly what he should be doing, IMHO.
Pete

When ANY of the other

January 11, 2008 - 12:20 ET by motherbelt

When ANY of the other candidates, Republican OR Democrat, got aggressive and pointed out disagreements with the others, were ANY of them ever called "hit men"?

This is just more baloney, like calling the criticism of someone's record the "politics of personal destruction." Apparently no one is supposed to call out an opponent on something they did or said or supported? Their past record doesn't count at all?

Double standard

January 11, 2008 - 13:31 ET by KC Mulville

After Iowa, Hillary puts out a political "contract" on Obama. Obama replies that he's from Chicago, so he knows how to play dirty. There was no policy statement involved, and the media said nothing. It would have interrupted their narrative about the angelic Obama filled with hope, and the noble Hillary struggling through the slings and arrows of being a woman.

Yet Thompson goes after Huckabee on policy grounds, and he's called a "hitman" and "stooge" for McCain.

You cannot get a clearer example of pure double-standard.

Great example, KC! And I

January 11, 2008 - 14:33 ET by motherbelt

Great example, KC! And I think you nailed in on the reason why they didn't cover it that way.

BTW, can you imagine if any Republican said, like HRC, that Obama hadn't done the "spade work" to be President?

Come on, no one uses the term "spade work" to indicate the first basic steps. Lay the groundwork, maybe. Spade work????

Could we have a Freudian slip here? LOL

Sharpton watches the Golf Channel?

January 11, 2008 - 20:52 ET by KC Mulville

That's like the poor girl on the Golf Channel. If you haven't heard the story, some young woman became a reporter on the Golf Channel. She was chatting about Tiger Woods, and was trying to give him a compliment. She said that the new crop of rookie golfers had no chance against Tiger. The only hope they had was to take Tiger into an alley and lynch him.

Now I've seen the girl who made the remark. She doesn't strike me as a history major, you know what I mean? It was, at the very worst, an inadvertant remark. She probably never made the racial connection herself. I'll bet money that some off-screen producer had to explain it to her.

Apparently, Al Sharpton got wind of the comment, and demanded she be fired. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton says something along the same lines, and not a word from the Reverend. Evey liberal in the world jumps up and down about Bush's malapropisms, howling that these goof-ups are proof of his stupidity. And yet, here's Hillary, running for the most important job in the world, and when she tosses off a racially borderline remark while running against a black man whom she has already threatened to attack ... where's Al Sharpton?

That's right. He was too busy watching the Golf Channel. Please.

KC... Excellent review of

January 11, 2008 - 21:00 ET by bigtimer

KC...

Excellent review of what happened in this situation..this country has gone way past madness.

The Clinton words will end up biting them too in the end, just give it time.

...all in all it is pure madness...and I blame the left and cowards in the business world of all venues.

The Lost Disclaimer

January 11, 2008 - 12:21 ET by pilsener

You must leave out of the transcripts the Stephanopoulos disclaimer that says: "I worked with Hillary and Bill during the first Clinton administration and still maintain close ties with them and James Carville who is an offical advisor to the Hillary campaign"

Strange, it doesn't appear in any of the ABC videos either!

Now, remember. Georgie

January 11, 2008 - 12:25 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Now, remember. Georgie Snuffagupallous is another one of those fair and balanced sorta fellers... that used to be a partisan hack for the Clinton White House.

Don't forget, that, now.

Thompson cleaned the

January 11, 2008 - 12:36 ET by bigtimer

Thompson cleaned the Huckster's clock last night and the msm seems to refuse to replay this segment at all...only Luntz and his focus group seemed to focus on reality...Hannity did go to the truth too on Thompson....

I notice Fred is just getting mentioned as an after thought now and then...I am now finally furious with all of this...I am sick of some people whining about Paul not supposedly getting coverage, well he has gotten plenty of coverage, I have and seen and heard past enough of him, I believe he should have his right to speak his piece and be in debates but the msm including Fox are only interested it seems in Huckabee and McCain, who by the way makes me ill, he trying to insert the he is the Sheriff of the Senate now and well admired...(admired my arse, by the RINO's and the leftists only) and on top of that he is acting like he, and he alone has fought this war with his adn his plan alone for the surge, I give him credit for his service to this country and his sacrifice as a POW but I am way past fed up with him and his blinking winking eyes my friend...another phrase I am sick of...but to top it off his constant stretch or just plain lying about his amnesty plan in the Senate that we the American people stopped him and Reid with his Dream Act amnesty deal they tried to squeak through on the sly and the people spoke up again...McCain makes me sick.

Thompson also got a good one in on Rudy with his reference to the tax plan of Rudy's saying it sounded a lot like his plan...lol...

I loved How Brit Hume stupefied Paul last night with his question about the speed boat incident a couple of days ago with the answers the other candidates gave on being passive and letting the captains/commanders on the location make the split decisions...it was a great moment for me.

To the last and should of been the first point, the opening of the debate with the Star Spangled Banner being sung was a pure class act and quite a surprise to me....first class debate all the way.

As an aside I have to hurry and put this all here because heavy snow is falling of trees and hitting power lines somewhere so I may lose my power anytime...hopefully not and I can stay awhile longer and play.

Thompson/Hunter '08!

Thompson always said he was going to wait until SC before really campaigning, he won the debate last night hands down, fire was in his belly and I hope it stays there, I have been patiently waiting for this, I just hope it isn't too late with the msm not giving much attention to the real points he made in the debate last night...purposely.

bt, did Paul say as

January 11, 2008 - 15:14 ET by motherbelt

bt, did Paul say as President he would have been passive and let the commander on the scene make the decision as to how to react?

mb... I'm pretty sure

January 11, 2008 - 15:24 ET by bigtimer

mb...

I'm pretty sure that is the way he was going when Brit said to him what is the problem here...the others on the panel are agreeing with you about being passive...(I'm paraphrasing of course)

My husband and I were laughing so much for a few moments that I don't know if I ended up hearing everything.

I also think he went on and on about what all we do wrong and have done wrong to be there or anywhere in the world at the moment, of course he does that at any chance he gets...lol.

Yes, I loved the

January 11, 2008 - 16:43 ET by BD

Yes, I loved the particularly puzzled look on Ron P's face as Hume informed him with great exasperation that he was in agreement with the rest of the candidates.

Priceless....

agreement

January 11, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Celumnaz

What was Ron responding to?

Huck says be prepared to see the gates of Hell.

Fred says introduce them to their virgins cause they're going to be destroyed.

Guliani says Iran, Dangerous. (nothing about the commanders involved)

McCain says I agree with Guliani.

Paul gets the question "What if this happens again?" and he says he would urge more caution than these guys and Brit pretends he didn't hear any of that before.

There's no doubt in my mind that all of them would have done the same thing that was done at the time... let the commanders handle it.

Does Brit think the officers called the president to ask what they should do in the short amount of time it was happening?

Each candidate in turn said

January 11, 2008 - 17:24 ET by BD

Each candidate in turn said that they backed the commanders on the scene who displayed caution during the event. All, however stated that if threatened the commanders should "gates of hell" etc.

Paul then essentially complained that the other candidates did not follow that position until reminded by Hume that indeed they did.

candidates said

January 11, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Celumnaz

That's the question they got, Ron's was a different question.

They said go with commanders, then "Gates of Hell" (not their question), Ron said he'd be more cautious than they are.

Cel... Paul's question

January 11, 2008 - 17:31 ET by bigtimer

Cel...

Paul's question was basically the same.

question

January 11, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Celumnaz

"Governor Huckabee, did the American commander in the Strait of Hormuz the other day make the right decision"

"Senator Thompson, same question to you. Right call?"

"Mr. Mayor, what do you think."

To McCain: "What would you have done as a commander?"

Basically asking them all if they would second guess the commander.

"Congressman Paul, what if this happens again?"

To me this is not the same question.

And his reply

January 11, 2008 - 17:41 ET by BD

And his reply WAS?????????

It referred the others questions, ergo it was effectively asked as the prior series.

replies

January 11, 2008 - 17:44 ET by Celumnaz

and the replies were

Huck says be prepared to see the gates of Hell.

Fred says introduce them to their virgins cause they're going to be destroyed.

Guliani says Iran, Dangerous. (nothing about the commanders involved)

McCain says I agree with Guliani.

And Ron says he'd be more cautious than these guys.

All other candidtes

January 11, 2008 - 17:50 ET by BD

All other candidtes effectively stated they backed the commander in the field who did the right thing by being cautious, but if threatened would react appropriately(Gates of Hell, introduce them to their virgins etc)

Paul then said that he would be more cautious. How would he be more cautious than reacting if threatened? Not react if threatened? I do not want someone like THAT as president.

replies

January 11, 2008 - 17:56 ET by Celumnaz

They're going to turn a country to glass because some more speed boats approach us and go away without conflict?

That is not what they

January 11, 2008 - 18:03 ET by BD

That is not what they stated.

conflict

January 11, 2008 - 18:25 ET by Celumnaz

That's the scenario Ron was asked. If the same thing happened again, no shots fired, he would be cautious while the others are anxious to let it be known they're sending people to the Gates of Hell and whatnot.

He was posed the exact same

January 12, 2008 - 17:58 ET by BD

He was posed the exact same scenario as the others. They posited that they would be cautious, but if challenged would respond.

Ron Paul then said he would be even MORE cautious.

The only way to be even more cautious is to NOT leave the harbor at Norfolk.

So, Paul would have been

January 11, 2008 - 17:34 ET by BD

So, Paul would have been more cautious than defending the ships if provoked as stated by other candidates.

Yeah, that is what we need more off.... (Sarcasm/off)

From the point of view of the MSM

January 11, 2008 - 12:36 ET by Prester John

Thompson is the most dangerous because he doesn't have the:

Pro-abort baggage of Giuliani

The slick/flip flop baggage of Romney

The pro-illegal baggage of McCain

The religious baggage of Huckabee

The isolationist baggage of Paul

In other words, Thompson is the one who can hold the conservatives together while at the same time attracting the center.

The only "baggage" I see that Thompson has is a wife who is 24 years younger, whom, unlike some others in the field, he didn't marry until well after (17 years) his divorce from his first wife.

Thompson

January 11, 2008 - 13:46 ET by Celumnaz

I like Fred. If there were no Paul in the race I'd go Fred but even if Paul doesn't get the nomination I'm still going to have to go with him. It's not isolationist to want to trade with everyone while halting military support to the enemies of Israel. Am tired of lesser evils.

Fred's Support of No Child left behind and McCain/Feingold, Federal Law to prevent flag burning, expansion of Federal police powers, submission to the military industrial complex, I don't see him as against NAU/superhighway and I see more entangling alliances.

imo like the other nominees other than Paul, he'll have the same effect as a Democrat, it'll just happen slower.

Other than those maybe superficial things, I'd vote for Fred.

It's not isolationist to

January 11, 2008 - 14:24 ET by BD

It's not isolationist to want to trade with everyone while halting military support to the enemies of Israel.

So, selling weaponry to friendly regimes in the middle east (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, etc) who provide us petroleum at market prices is wrong?

I would have thought that a good libertarian would say that we should sell weaponry to EVERYONE?

and I see more entangling alliances.

Should the nation have allies? What nations other than the US would you go to war to protect if threatened?

Trade

January 11, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Celumnaz

Federal Subsidies for Weapons Exports isn't the same as Promoting Trade to me, nor is it Isolationist to want to cut that subsidy. Good trade makes for good allies. I wanted to let Israel do what it wanted to do back with Arafat piddling with Clinton but we're all messed up. Congress should decide who we go to war with, no?

Federal Subsidies for

January 11, 2008 - 14:50 ET by BD

Federal Subsidies for Weapons Exports isn't the same as Promoting Trade to me, nor is it Isolationist to want to cut that subsidy.

Those subsideies lead to profit in the out years. Ergo, not a monetary loss in the long run. Therefore not a true subsidy.

Good trade makes for good allies.

Sometimes. We have been trading with Russia and China recently, and this has not proven totally successful.

By the way, you have not listed those nations you are willing to defend in alliences.

I wanted to let Israel do what it wanted to do back with Arafat piddling with Clinton but we're all messed up.

Not material to the conversation.

Congress should decide who we go to war with, no?

Immaterial to the conversation, regardless of the fact that congress HAS decided who we have gone to war with.

By the way, you have not listed those nations YOU would be willing to defend as part of alliances.

Alliances

January 11, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Celumnaz

Who I personally would or would not want to defend as part of alliances is irrelivant to the conversation about the Isolationist Charge leveled at Ron Paul. Promoting Trade does not equal Isolationism.

How do you think Fred Thompson would answer your question?

It is very relevant to the

January 11, 2008 - 15:07 ET by BD

It is very relevant to the question since the hallmark of Libertarinism/Non-interventioninsm is that they would defend NO OTHER nation.

i need to know if you follow this standard.

I do not have a total read on Fred Thompson, but my educated guess would be that he would defend most freindly nations who are under threat of attack from a hostile nation if their cause is just.

Some nations such as the UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, italy, etc would be hard pressed for us to NOT defend in any way shape or form from an attack. I would assume that Thompson would follow that same tact.

Paul would likely NOT.

Libertarian

January 11, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Celumnaz

Still not sure why you need to know this about Me, as this is about the charge of Isolationism leveled at Ron Paul.

Promoting Trade does not equal Isolationism and neither of us evidently are convinced Paul wouldn't go to the defense of a friendly nation.

Meanwhile support for Fred (or any of the others for that matter) is support for More Govt. control in people's lives.

I am all for promoting

January 11, 2008 - 16:56 ET by BD

I am all for promoting trade, But I do not see any other candidates who fail this test with the exception of a few countries with which it is critical that we punish/control economically. Cuba, Iran, etc. I am certain Paul would state that that punishment will create "Blowback" and should not be attempted.

Paul, on the other hand is an isolationist and has stated so more than a few times. Paul has stated that he did not believe we should have forces deployed to support allies. I need to know which allies you support that Paul does not.

The government will ALWAYS be involved in our lives to a certain extent. The key is to keep it to as low a level as feasible and no more or less. That is where the disagreement lies.

isolationist

January 11, 2008 - 17:19 ET by Celumnaz

I need to go find where Paul has said "I am an isolationist" then, because haven't seen it yet.

I do agree where you say disagreement lies. imo the size of our govt. is too much, not too little and not just right.

Foreign Policy is the One area where he and I disagree, but I can live with his Foreign Policy ideas until we get this nation on the straight track.

Pauls stated position in

January 11, 2008 - 17:35 ET by BD

Pauls stated position in most debates indicates he is an isolationist.

Examples:

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East.

Rep Paul: Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.

Rep Paul- We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend -- our borders --

Rep Paul- We should not go to war -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law.

If this is not isolationist.....

So much time on Fred Thompson

January 11, 2008 - 12:49 ET by Lame Cherry

Liberals are terrified of Fred Thompson if he can survive out into the main super delegate and large states as that is where Huckabee and McCain tank.

The old line, This is Reagan Country is going to come into play, but Thompson has to come to those states to have his chance.

As I blogged before, I have no idea what this GOP "is", because McCain winning as he is nothing but a liberal casino mafia shill, Ron Paul has a goofy 10 percent and everything he spouts is Kucinich rhetoric communism, then Romney bounces around on positions. None of these candidates are Republican but RINO and WACKO.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Cherry...

January 11, 2008 - 12:52 ET by Clear thinker

Amen!

I am really worried about the future of the GOP, and the current crop of candidates tell the tale. Fred really is the only all around Conservative in the race. I just hope other Conservatives come to their senses in time. And a little prayer!

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/

Hold on Lame thinkers....anyone can vote Republican

January 11, 2008 - 18:07 ET by JayTee

Republicans don't kick anyone out of joining and voting. It's not a group think as you guys well know, and we have Far Right, Middle, Moderate, and Ron Paul flavored views. And a few Independents throw in their Hats.

You guys are looking for a Real Fundamental Conservative, and you only get flirting and foreplay, no real consumation of the Conservative Platform.

We the People, have turned McCain's Immigration attitude around, but it needs some more screws tighted down. Elections should Mold the Candidates who seek votes. As long as we keep complaining in BIG numbers, the eventually winner has to be influenced.

Holding your vote because only Rhino's show up on Stage, gets you closer to Hillary and Company.

Fred ain't Dead after just 2 states, Rudy isn't dead either, but the MSM is trying to sell us a death certificate.

Hit man...

January 11, 2008 - 12:55 ET by Clear thinker

So little Stephie has a problem when the GOP plays hardball. I'm betting he loves it and calls it 'politics' when the Dems do it.

What a tool. And not a very useful one at that.

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/

Stephanopoulos knows all

January 11, 2008 - 13:43 ET by kg

Stephanopoulos knows all about hit men from working for the Clintons. But for the Clintons they called hired guns. Much better to do it the Democrat way and use a 3rd party than get your fingers dirty. Then you can deny, deny, deny.

Media not Interested

January 11, 2008 - 12:56 ET by richb313

The media is not interested in Fred. He won't play thier game and that is a cardinal sin. He won't comment on style of delivery, or any of the other tripe that the modern media is interested in. Fred is taking a gamble by focusing on issues, ignoring meaningless early primarys who only benifit paid political operatives and so on. I hope it starts a trend but I do not hold out much hope.

The media spoon feeds us thie endless process stories about who has the most cash, better organization and so on as well as endless polls which do more harm than any good that can be gleaned from them. However we the news consumer seem to lap it right up.

ABC's George S. is about as objective as any brainwashed liberal can bring himself to be. I don't care that his opinions have a liberal bias, I really don't. I do care that they pretend that they are objective, that I really care about.

Snuffthelotofus is a harbinger

January 11, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Republican_by_Default

I find it ironic that Georgie Snuffthelotofus (pronounced
Snuff-the-lot-of-us) would actually use the the word 'hit' in a hit
piece.

The left always handles real threats the same way:

Ignore it and hope it goes away, but if it doesn't...
Dismiss it as irrelevant, and when that doesn't work...
Frame it as the most heinous threat to the world's children, and if that doesn't work...
Send up trial balloon after trial balloon to see which one floats
(just like the 'impeach Bush' crowd has been doing for 7 years)... and
if none of those float, then...
It's time for the organ player to pull out all of the stops...
and the orchestration begins. It's the full-court press (if you
don't mind mixed metaphors.) Then, if the water-carriers in the MSM
fail...
The full Democrat leadership jumps in to attack. But this
only happens if the MSM fails. Don't want to get dirt on those
fancy clothes. It might tarnish their images.

So, Georgie, who I like to think of as Carville with hair, is just
letting the rest of the water carriers know that Fred is becoming a
threat.

And just as an aside, I think Fred may have played his hand well by
entering the race late. By doing so he avoided the initial
onslaught of attacks by the MSM and his fellow candidates. South
Carolina will let us know if his overall strategy worked.

Fred Thompson verbally

January 11, 2008 - 13:23 ET by Pickaxe Pete

Fred Thompson verbally bitch-slapped Huckabee last night and afterwards did the same thing to Alan Colmes in a post-debate interview. When it came time for Huckabee's interview, Colmes treated him to softball questions as if he WAS a Democrat, which proves Fred was correct.

The Bodie Specter - "I'd rather be hit with Dick Cheney's shot than with Bill Clinton's wad"

George is barely qualified

January 11, 2008 - 13:25 ET by PeskyDane

George is barely qualified to be the night manager at the corner quickie-mart (with apologies to those who break their asses doing that job as I once did in college).

Fred Thompson did what he did motivated by his own ambitions to be president. That's all there is to it. The simplest explanations are ground truth 99% of the time. But no, these libtards are always looking for the angle, the meaning behind it all. They are so imeshed in needless complications due to their own cravings for attention and they project that on the rest of us.

This is the same crowd that thinks a presidential assassination witnessed by a crowd was part of a conspiracy involving thousands of people and a score of government and criminal organizations, and yet has been kept airtight for over 40 years.

And The Hits Just Keep On Coming

January 11, 2008 - 13:34 ET by NoMoreClintons

"Boy George" has a lot of nerve calling anyone else a hit man. Isn't that what he does for the Clintons at every opportunity? Like right now. Except that "hit boy" would be closer to the truth.