The GOP race has taken a turn for the tougher in the last 48 hours or so. Mitt Romney in a Washington Examiner interview took a whack at Fred Thompson on Wednesday dishing out a trifecta of digs: he's lazy, he's a Washington insider and he's sitting on the sidelines. Not surprisingly, some of Thompson's opponents took their turn at bat the next day, commenting not so favorably on Thompson's memory and candor in the wake of the New York Times story which uncovered the Thompson billing records for his pro-choice lobbying client. Then the oh so helpful news clippings started to show up around the Right blogosphere pointing out Thompson's past support for McCain Feingold, which he championed but luckily for him does not bear his name. Apparently it seemed like a good idea to the Rudy camp to highlight an issue on which Thompson is at odds with both legal and economic conservatives and this week put out a policy statement in favor of tort reform. What is going on? It seems Thompson's opponents have figured out several things: 1) While he is testing the waters they still can unleash the piranhas; 2) Thompson's muddled response to the lobbying issue may have signaled that he is less than adept at this stage in fending off attacks and 3) There is no time like the present to knock Thompson down a peg or two and scoop up some of those McCain voters who may be shopping around for a new choice. This poses an interesting dilemma for the Thompson camp: if he is going to get attacked shouldn't he get into the race, defend himself and define himself before voters start to say things like "oh, he's the lobbyist who likes trial lawyers"? It is rule one in politics that if you don't define yourself, others will. I think the "others" started this week. Posted By: Jennifer Rubin

W.E.B. Du Bois,

If Senator Thompson explains his reasoning at the time, I don't believe his campaign is necessarily doomed. For example, his reasoning for support of the McCain-Feingold legislation was:

There is a tremendous amount of money now coming into play that was not there a short time ago. We have a system now that benefits the politicians and benefits the parties, and we try to make folks think it is our birthright. It has not always been that way. It is a recent creation, and it is not a good creation.

Why is it not good? It is not good to have legislators or Presidents be too dependent on people for whom they are supposed to be making laws that affect their lives. When the very people who have legislation before you are coming to you with greater and greater amounts of money for your political campaign, that creates a potential conflict of interest that we simply do not need. It does not look good. The American people think, the average Joe on the street thinks, that with that much money being paid to that few people, they are expecting something for it.

Source: Congressional Record, March 20, 2002.

Clearly, that's not an argument for instinctively limiting free speech. It is a much more nuanced reasoning that expresses concern with actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could imperil political leaders' independent judgment. While many conservatives might disagree with his vote, I believe conservatives can and will understand his position and won't hold it against him. Ultimately, how he comes out on the more important issues of national security, the economy, taxes, etc., will probably determine his fate in the Republican primaries and, if he wins the nomination, beyond that.

Originally Posted by expatincebu ...Paul makes to much sense wanting to get rid of the fed so the powers that be will never let him even get nominated.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Clearly, that's not an argument for instinctively limiting free speech. It is a much more nuanced reasoning that expresses concern with actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could imperil political leaders' independent judgment. While many conservatives might disagree with his vote, I believe conservatives can and will understand his position and won't hold it against him. Ultimately, how he comes out on the more important issues of national security, the economy, taxes, etc., will probably determine his fate in the Republican primaries and, if he wins the nomination, beyond that.[/left]

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 There is no conspiracy to prevent Ron Paul's nomination. He won't get nominated simply because his views don't resonate with a sufficient number of Republican primary voters.