Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

A little of what could have been instead of what is
Posted by: mcq on Saturday, February 02, 2008

Of course getting in the race early and giving it a little more "go" that it got might have helped, but still:

Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Sweet video, I like this one better.
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Nice Captin. I guess Thompson wasn’t really the "true" conservative, huh?
Written By: Nuclear
URL: http://
hahah what a loser
Written By: SLNTAX
URL: http://
Sarcastic - Thompson has since regretted his support of that legislation. I haven’t heard McCain or Bush say the same.
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Sarcastic - Thompson has since regretted his support of that legislation. I haven’t heard McCain or Bush say the same.
No, Thompson has not said that he regretted his support, that’s just flat out false.

He has suggested that "he’s not ready to go there yet, but maybe the caps on hard money should be removed".

Hardly regret.
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
No, Thompson has not said that he regretted his support, that’s just flat out false.
Actually he has and I sat right there and watched him do so during a TV interview. Now I didn’t record it and I don’t know if it’s available, but I can certainly vouch for the fact that when I saw him asked about that specific point, he voiced regret for having supported it because the law didn’t at all do what he thought it would do. Unfortunately, other than me questioning the TV about what he expected it to do, the interviewer never followed up on his explanation.
Written By: McQ
Actually he has and I sat right there and watched him do so during a TV interview
I don’t doubt that you saw what you saw, but if that was going to be his official position, you would think that he would have corrected his recorded quotes in the Fund interview in th WSJ.

Further, it would be just too convenient that all this time he has not given the impression that he had any regrets, and when he runs for President having to face conservative primary voters, he suddenly has a position more in line with their thinking.

Further, McCain-Feingold-Thompson was not just some bill that he voted for.

From the George Will column...
In 1997, Thompson chaired a Senate committee investigating 1996 election spending. In its final report, issued in 1998, Thompson’s committee recommended a statutory "restriction on issue advocacy" during "a set period prior to an election" when the speech includes "any use of a candidate’s name or image." And in 1999, Thompson co-sponsored legislation containing what became, in 2002, the McCain-Feingold blackout periods imposed on any television or radio ad that "refers to" a candidate for federal office — a portion of which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in June.

Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham, "I voted for all of it," meaning McCain-Feingold, but said "I don’t support that" provision of it.

Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress’s especially "compelling interest" in squelching issue ads that "influence" elections?

Most lamely, Thompson takes credit for McCain-Feingold doubling the amount of "hard money" an individual can give to a candidate, which he says reduces the advantages of incumbency. But that is absurd: Most hard money flows to incumbents.

Ingraham asked why government should be telling individuals how much they can give to fund political speech by candidates they support. Thompson replied: "Why should the government . . . tell a loan officer that he cannot accept money from someone trying to get a loan from him . . . and then go ahead and give that person a loan? . . . I mean, it’s bribery in the real world."

So he believes, as zealous regulators of political speech do, that political contributions are incipient bribes — but that bribery begins with contributions larger than $2,300.

On McCain-Feingold, if you don’t like McCain, you can’t like Thompson, at least not rationally.

But to deplore McCain and wax nostalgic about what could have been with Thompson defies logic.

You are probably fortunate that Thompson did not win the nomination, because you would have been shooting steam (Anchor Steam?) from your ears when in the general election campaign, he would have used McCain-Feingold-Thompson as a political asset to woo less libertarian voters.
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks