Wed 14 Nov 2007
One of Arizona’s establishment political blogs has a story on all of the bloggers that are supporting McCain. I found this one most telling – The Liberal Republican, A New England moderate on all things political. Interesting that a New England moderate is supporting McCain and not Romney.
McCain has shown a resurgence in the polls lately except in certain places: He is tied with Ron Paul in Iowa for 5th place and is in 4th place in South Carolina. Well at least he will win New Hampshire. The senator contends that only 16% of New Hampshire voters have made up their minds but CBS News reports that 34% of likely Republican voters have made up their minds (little bit of a difference there.)
On another note: Ted P. down in Tucson had a field day with George Allen in 2006 but I have not yet seen his analysis of this comment from a Democrat in Louisiana.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:30 am
It is telling that “The Liberal Republican” supports John McCain for president. For those of you who think Andrew P. Thomas is a genuine conservative, remember that he has also endorsed John McCain. Andy Thomas keeps showing us that he will sacrifice conservative principles for his perceived political self-interest.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Andy Thomas is a solid conservative.
As for Ted P., don’t hold your breath. Its only bad when a Republican does it. Democrats have said much worse things in recent years and the MSM does not care and so-called liberals look the other way.
Remember when Klansman and Dem Senator Robert Byrd said the “N” word on TV a few years ago.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Mike S., are you denying that Andy Thomas has endorsed John McCain for president?
No “solid conservative” would endorse the anti-free-speech, anti-second-amendment, sometimes-anti-tax-cut McCain for president.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Don’t forget that John McCain is also Senator McAmnesty! It is a serious red flag that Andrew Thomas endorsed McCain’s presidential campaign.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13brooks.html?em&ex=1195102800&en=8c6f2937970a008f&ei=5087
November 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Dear CD-3
I normally don’t like anonymous posts, and I am always proud to put my name under my posts.
In your case, even though you write under a moniker, I shall give you extenuated dispensation for quoting David Brooks from the New York Times in his honest and note- worthy opinion about the Senator.
I especially enjoyed the closing:
“But character is destiny, and you will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men. That human point seemed worth remembering, even amid the layers of campaign pretense”.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Where is the Thomas endorsement of McCain? For President? I only ask because it comes on the heels of Thomas attending a fundraiser for Russell Pearce, who’s about as anti-McCain as they come. Brownback endorsed McCain as well, and I think that surprised some Brownback fans. I am confused…but nothing new there.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Yes, Andrew Thomas endorsed John McCain for president. Moreover, Thomas is a member of McCain’s “Campaign Leadership Team.” I saw the endorsement at least several months ago.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Brownback endorsing McCain was no surprise, because they were strong allies on the amnesty bill.
This is not Andy Thomas’s first time siding with the liberal and moderate Republicans. Don’t forget Thomas supported the liberal Republican’s attempt to take over LD 11 from the conservatives. Thomas is only conservative when it serves his self-interest.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Fair enough, but can anyone explain a McCain supporter siding with Russell Pearce against Jeff Flake? There has got to be something more to this. So he’s (Thomas) siding with a conservative Republican there…against another conservative. Pretty soon, these terms are not meaning a whole lot. If you side with liberal, moderate, and conservative Republicans…you may just be…a Republican!
November 15th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Give me a break, Timothy. At first you tried to question that Thomas endorsed McCain. Then, when I confirmed it, you act as if it’s no big deal. No solid conservative would endorse McCain for president. Period. End of story. How does one explain Andrew Thomas endorsing McCain and Pearce? Easy, Thomas puts his own political ambition above principle, and Thomas thought he would get something out of endorsing McCain.
Just out of curiosity, do you work in the county attorney’s office, Timothy?
November 15th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
uh, hey moderators, CA is attributing another’s comments to me…
Being a conservative is one thing, being a solid one is another, and being an activist is still another. It must be tough to keep them all straight.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:42 am
It’s true that Timothy questioned whether Andrew Thomas endorsed McCain for president (comment 7). It’s also true that once he was corrected, he tried to belittle the significance of the endorsement (comment 10). I wonder why Timothy never answered the question about whether he worked in Thomas’s office.
As I’ve written on this site before, Andy Thomas billed himself as a reliable conservative, but now those of us who worked in overdrive to get him elected realize he deceived us. I agree with the others on this thread that Thomas is not about conservatism, but rather about himself. Appointing his close political associate as a special prosecutor to persecute (yes, persecute, not prosecute) the New Times? What does Thomas do in other areas when we don’t have the benefit of publicity?
November 16th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Timothy,
If someone misquotes you then correct them. This is a free-speech forum and we try to moderate for physical threats, profanity, and other items that rise to that level.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:35 am
In comment #7 I asked *where* the endorsement was. Kinda like “where’s my wallet.” It’s somewhere, I guess, I just want to know where it is. If legit, it contradicts being involved politically with Pearce, so a little belittlement of one or the other is in order. And I admitted I was confused by it, and still am.
And someone anonymously saying “I saw the endorsement several months ago” does not confirm anything, to me.
As far as who I am or where I work, well that’s just inviting ad hominem attacks, now isn’t it? So I guess I’ll sacrifice some of my conservatism to preserve my self-interest.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
So, Timothy ….. I guess thats a yes? I mean, that is the only answer that would invited ad hominem attacks (perhaps with good reason in that case).
You seemed to be a critic of anonymity.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Andrew Thomas sacrifices conservatism all the time to preserve his self-interest. Of course if you ask me, his supposed “conservatism” was just what he was using for his self-interest in getting elected.
Not a fan. He’s a wack-job.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Are there ever good reasons for ad hominem attacks on someone’s argument? It’s a logical fallacy, but often effective in a Brittney Spears kind of way. Enormously popular, possibly talented, but we can’t get past our moral outrage about the person long enough to listen.
Anonymity has its place not just in blogs but in many historical institutions, some quite useful: Grand juries. The ballot box. Silent Witness. Deep Throat. Focus groups. American Idol. And until recently, campaign finance.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Evidence of Andrew Thomas’s endorsement of John McCain is right there on McCain’s presidential campaign website!
Timothy: “uh, hey moderators, CA is attributing another’s comments to me…”
Okay, let’s go through this.
First Timothy expressed disbelieve that Andrew Thomas endorsed McCain, when he wrote:
“Where is the Thomas endorsement of McCain? For President? ”
In response, I wrote, “At first you tried to question that Thomas endorsed McCain.”
Then Timothy responded that he was merely asking “*where* the endorsement was.”
But then later in the same post, Timothy again expresses doubt whether Thomas indeed endorsed McCain: “And someone anonymously saying ‘I saw the endorsement several months ago’ does not confirm anything, to me.”
You know about that lawyer who argued that his client doesn’t have a dog and that the dog he owns didn’t bite anyone? That’s what you remind me of. Whether or not you work in Thomas’s office, you sure act like a dishonest lawyer.
What kills me is that you asked the moderators to intervene.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:41 am
As far as I can tell, no one asked Timothy who he was or where exactly he worked. If he simply responded that he didn’t work for Andrew Thomas, then that would have narrowed him down to one of the almost six million people who live in Arizona.
There were yet more articles on the lack of professionalism and ethics in Andrew Thomas’s office yesterday in the Republic. One indicated that a judge ruled that Thomas’s office intentionally mislead a grand jury. In another, another judge ruled that the office left out required documents in the New Times grand jury file and scheduled a hearing–yet another negative twist on a very disturbing story about Thomas’s office.
The problem here is that not only is Thomas not really a principled conservative, but he also does not meet the professional standard to be a county attorney.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Conservative activist,
Who are you? Rob Haney? The guy who likes to slam conservatives who don’t agree with him on only .001% of the issues – gradually destroying the party? What do you have against Andrew Thomas, one of the most conservative politicians in the state? Republicans finally elect a very conservative politician to a major office in Arizona, and all you can do is rip him up? Obviously you’re someone with an agenda against Mr. Thomas, you have some issue with him that you’re not disclosing, because his conservative credentials are more impeccable than probably any other major Republican politician in the state. I’ve exchanged emails with “Timothy” for awhile now, and I know what he does for a living, and he does not work for Mr. Thomas. (although even if he did, I don’t see why it should matter – and aren’t you the one who said you used to work for Mr. Thomas to help put him in office)
November 17th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
CA and Bob: You win. I give up. I’ve never been re-quoted before, and it’s just creepy when my “quote” is already only three inches above your “re-quote.” It’s weird. And of all the insults…to be accused of being a lawyer is just tooo much.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“Real conservative activist,”
First, Rob Haney is a good man and has done as much for conservatism as any other volunteer in the state. That you insult him tells me you are about power, not conservative principles. Why are you even bringing Haney up?
As far as my problem with Andrew Thomas, it is threefold:
1. Andrew Thomas professes to be a conservative when it helps to win elections, but his actions indicate otherwise (e.g., endorsing McCain, hiring liberals like Barnett Lotstien to help run his office, etc.).
2. I agree with Bob that Andrew Thomas lacks the ethics to serve as county attorney. Thomas hasn’t even been through one term, and we already have scandals in his office like the New Times witch hunt and a judge ruling that Thomas’s office mislead a grand jury to score high-profile indictments. Thomas will do anything to preserve and expand his political power, and that’s unacceptable to any true conservative.
3. Thomas’s unethical conduct has damaged the reputation of Republicans.
P.S. I never worked for Thomas, but I did work my tail off to get him elected. Trust me, I won’t ever make that mistake again.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
“And of all the insults…to be accused of being a lawyer is just tooo much.”
Funny