Lane Hudson, left-wing blogger and the man who posted the Mark Foley e-mails, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against former Senator Fred Thompson:
In his complaint, Hudson lays out a number of examples ranging from Thompson's extensive fundraising to quotes from the senator and his advisers.
"Fred Thompson is breaking the law and it's time somebody did something about it," Hudson said in a statement. "So, this morning, I filed an FEC Complaint against him. For far too long, he has been ignoring the letter and spirit of Federal Election Law for his own political benefit. It reeks of the same disregard for the law that we have seen from the Bush Administration, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay [sic], and Mark Foley."
AOL's Matt Singer covered this yesterday and I wanted to add a few thoughts. Note how he had to throw in Foley's name in case people forgot it was him who bravely "outed" the congressman. It seems Lane has not gotten the press he craves of late and wanted to get back in the paper. Foley's actions were disgusting, but a salient point is the fact that no charges against Foley have been brought as of July. The fact that Hudson didn't include Rep. William Jefferson--he of the $90,000 in his freezer--shows exactly what a Dem operative and shill this guy is.
Anyway, this is a sham complaint that will do nothing except have the boomerang effect. Thompson's been getting so-so press of late and this will help get his supporters worked up. There is no law that has been broken and I'm sure that Thompson's staff has researched this issue very in-depth. There are business concerns involved; NBC would have to shelve any Law & Order episodes in which Thompson appeared, movies in which Thompson acted could not be shown and so on. In other words, Hudson filed a lame complaint for no other reason than to get a little traffic to his blog and it's working. The lefty blogosphere thinks this is significant enough that the larger liberal bloggers are all covering it, yet it's a complete non-issue.
Thompson needs to commit or back off and not because of any FEC violations, but because it's only fair to his supporters. He had great polling numbers to start but they're ebbing and Rudy Giuliani continues to cruise. The expected date of announcement is Labor Day, which is a week from Monday. If he waits any longer, it will sink him.
Update: Not one Democrat remembers just how long John Kerry's exploratory committee was in business, now do they? Try much longer than Fred Thompson's and I don't remember any losers filing FEC complaints.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. How old is the clown who wrote this thing?
"..it was him who bravely "outed" the Congressman.."
What is the point? Has the author of this tripe been listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity so long that outing a Republican pedofile is a "bad" thing?!
Not to mention the sophmoric tone of the entire piece.
It's clear that the pimple-faced, young writer of this screed has grown up in a period where exposing a Republican lawbreaker is a horrribly "liberal" thing to do. It apparently doesn't even need to be explained why "outing" a deviant criminal like Republican Mark Foley is so bad.
Thank GOD the American people aren't still stuck in the 90's like little Scottie here.
Jackson Randolph at 9:32AM on Aug 21st 2007
2. Why does Fred Thompson have to enter the race now?
This campaign for our nations next President has started over two years before the actual election. That's way to soon. The front runners, especially on the left, have been bashing each other for six months now. Dirt in one form or another has been printed on every candidate. All of their reputations to some degree have been damaged. John McCain proves my point. This guy was considered a shoe in a year ago but the mistakes he has made and the attacks by other candidates and the press have made him almost a second tier candidate today. No one is saying much about Fred Thompson because as of now he's not "running." When you run for your party's nomination for two full years you provide too many opportunties to make mistakes or to allow other candidates to tarnish your reputation to the point that you appear unelectable. Look how Obama and Edwards have fallen in the polls. Obama appeared ready to challenge Hillary a few short months ago but no longer. This is the same reason second term Presidents typically have far lower approval numbers than first term Presidents. Four years of attacks by the opposition combined with actual mistakes made begin to stick and approval numbers drop. Winning a party's nomination has less to do with what you offer than on the mud that sticks. Fred Thompson is mud free as of now.
Fred Thompson is playing it smart. Except for some meaningless liberal blogger, no one is attacking the guy. His reputation, unlike Obama, Edwards or McCain is still in tack. He will have a leg up by entering the race late if for no other reason than he has the name without the mud the other candidates have to deal with. Howard Dean was the dominate front runner in the last campaign but the negative press and attacks by the other candidates cost him the left's nomination. Kerry received the left's nomination by default because he had flown under the radar screen and his reputation remained fairly clean through the primary. Fred Thompson may just win the right's nomination based on the same logic.
Fred's message is a pretty moderate one. I believe the most moderate candidate will win the next election. At this point the most moderate appear to be on the right. Rudy, McCain, Fred, and Mitt have all shown the ability to cross party lines and create solutions. None of the first tier Democrats can show the same history. Of Obama, Edwards and Hillary, which one has shown in their campaigns a willingness to support a position outside of their party line? Not a one. It's a lie to pitch your ability to be moderate with a history to prove it. Rudy and McCain are pro life. Mitt created basically a universal health care plan in Mass and Fred Thompson supports ending tax cuts. As long as Democrats continue to kiss up to organized labor, gays and other special interest groups that most Americans are not a part of, they will have a hard time pitching a moderate status. The nation may not be happy with Bush but that does not mean they are ready to go to the opposite extreme and nominate a far left Democrat as President. The Democratic Congress today has lower approval numbers than Bush. Many are saying they want a third middle of the road party. They won't get it but at this point the right is far closer to the center than the far left.
Republicans may very well lose additional seats in Congress in the next election but they will win the Presidency. The social expeirment of a Hillary Obama ticket won't be enough.
Clay at 9:42AM on Aug 21st 2007
3. who cares hes just a small fish, last time an actor was elected tha country siffered for 16 years
john mcdaniel at 10:25AM on Aug 21st 2007
4. Must have the liberal dems worried about his strength, they have such a loser in Hillary, they don't know an honest man or woman when they hear one. Thompson is free in this country and this idiot who has filed this is like all liberal dems off his rocker.
Jane at 11:16AM on Aug 21st 2007
5. Fred it's time to put your hat in the ring
Earl at 11:29AM on Aug 21st 2007
6. Fred it's time to put your hat in the ring
Earl at 11:29AM on Aug 21st 2007
7. Let's not forget too, that Lane held on to the news about Foley until it could have maximum POLITICAl impact-- close to the election, and, actually, the day after no one could replace Foley's name on the ballot.
Even with endless CNN coverage of Foley for a month and a half before the election, even with dissatisfaction over Iraq, and all of the other hurdles facing Republicans in the last election, the Democrats could only muster to barely win the Senate.
Will we ever see the Democrats held accountable? What about Sandy Berger? What about Jefferson? What about asking 'what's the point' when they are mindlessly critical of the President or the war?
In 2008, this country has an opportunity to do a gut check and seek real change (getting rid of the liberal establishment). Somehow, I think it can happen. It just doesn't seem possible to think that these ivory tower liberals at the NYT, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, Boston Globe, SF Chronicle, CBS News, NBC News, etc, etc will be running this country for much longer. It started in the early 1960's and the grip has gotten stronger and more entrenched. It's time for THAT to change. And a resounding election defeat of high power liberals might finally shake up this countries newsrooms for the better.
Then, imagine, we could actually start talking about issues instead of just "framing them" (to borrow the liberal journalists favorite word) for the Democrats advantage.
just-a-thought at 11:31AM on Aug 21st 2007
8. Jackson, you delude yourself. First, the tone is there because this is an opinion blog, if you want left-wing spin, go to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC.
As for the "pedofile" comment, the man has not been charged with anything. We are still innocent until proven guilty and proof is not the words of one vile blogger.
As for "pimply-faced," I've been doing this for alot of years, the comments like yours still astound. Go for the personal attack and not rebut the issues. Typical lib, typical response. No substance, less game.
Scott at 11:38AM on Aug 21st 2007
9. This story is an act of desperation.
VOTE FRED THOMPSON!!
THE ONLY TRUE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE.
FORGET THOSE CLOWNS!! THEY WILL ONLY HURT YOU AND OUR COUNTRY.
NOTPC4U at 12:33PM on Aug 21st 2007
10. If Thompson has nothing to worry about, then so be it. Why are conservatives fretting about this then?
As to #7 - obviously from your comment you desperately just want to give Mark FOley a pass...as to CNN and their coverage, even your beloved FOX covered Foley too. No doubt if FOley had been a DEM they would have had 24 hour coverage.
David S. at 1:56PM on Aug 21st 2007
11. No one is giving Foley a pass. He's not been convicted of anything (or indicted). The only thing proven about Foley is that he sent vile messages to a page who turned them over to Lane.
The reason I included Jefferson is because he indeed has been indicted and is still serving as a Democrat.
Scott at 2:12PM on Aug 21st 2007
12. Washington outsider? As a lawyer, his first appearance in Washington was Nixon's mole on the Watergate Committee. From 1975 to 1993, he was a Washington lobbyist, lobbying for the Republicon deregulation bill that resulted in the savings and loans debacle that cost the US taxpayer a $1.4 trillion bail-out; and, already this year he lied about lobbying for the pro-choice Family Planning Council. In the Senate, he voted against requiring criminal background checks at gun shows, and he believes the best deterrence to the Virginia Tech massacre would have been armed students and faculty on campus. Like Reagan, he's an actor, but Reagan had a long and distinguished career also as President of the Screen Actors Guild, Governor of California, and decades long leader of the Republican Revolution before becoming President, whereas Thompson has no such record of leadership. He never served President Reagan, but he did serve Nixon. Cheney and Rumsfeld also started their careers serving Nixon. Haven't we had enough of Nixon's spawn?
Fred Staggs at 2:30PM on Aug 21st 2007
13. I just think it is funny how people are now finding blogs from others who they disagree with and decide to make a blog to tell everyone what the other guy blogged about having people join the blog to blog blog blog blog.
I don't think Republicans are closer to the middle than the Democrats, they are just better actors.
David McCool at 5:17PM on Aug 21st 2007