I’ll let them roll under there on your own.” This was the gist of a recent Thompson campaign press release and statements by Sleepy-time Thompson himself.
[Philip Martin, a]n adviser to Republican Fred Thompson quit the presidential candidate’s campaign Monday, one day after [the release of] a report about his [24-year-old] criminal record for drug dealing.
Well, that’s the upright thing to do: resign so that you don’t cast a shadow over your friend’s campaign. Here’s what Fred Sed (emPHAsis mine):
Thompson said Sunday he was unaware of Martin’s criminal past, but that he wouldn’t “throw my friend under the bus” for decades-old indiscretions.
[…]
“Nobody’s made any accusations that he’s done anything illegal with regard to our campaign,” said Thompson, questioned about it on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“I know Phil is a good man. He is my friend. He is going to remain my friend. He didn’t go to jail, he got probation, he’s paid his debt to society and turned himself around and become a good, productive, successful citizen,” Thompson said.
He said he would talk to Martin and figure out “what the right thing is,” but that “I’m not going to throw my friend under the bus for something he did, you know, 25 years ago if he’s OK now.”
Fred will stand by his friend, not throw him under the bus (I love it that the GOP has appropriated that LGBT term!), etc. etc. Wow, that’s quite the honorable stance to take, and I commend Fred for taking it. However, he is apparently willing to let his great friend throw himself under the bus.
The campaign issued the [resignation] statement.
If Martin’s illegal pursuits are all in the past and not paying for the jet fuel Fred is currently burning (he uses Martin’s private jet to get around the country), then why accept his letter of resignation? Why let a good and dear friend impale himself? Or is the truth closer to something like this:
Fred: “Men, we’ve got a situation here. Phil, I love ya, you know I do. But we’re gonna hafta fly you under the radar for a while. Molly, honey, be a good girl and go type up a letter of resignation for Phil to sign. Pronto! We’re gonna make ’em think you fell on the sword for me, because that’s just what you’re gonna do. Molly, ya got that yet? Now fix me up some nice copy about how I’m gonna bleed to kingdom come for my friggin friend Phil here. We gotta baffle ’em with some bullshit so they, uh, don’t hear the axe crackin through ole Phil here’s neckbones. Ya see, we’re gonna say we’d never throw him under the bus to cover for the fact that that’s exactly what we’re making people think we’re letting happen.”
Can the Thompson campaign get any more flimsy? I’m guessing yes. đŸ˜‰
Laurel – a quick search shows citations back to 1984, in connection with the Bee Gees! See Double Toungued Dictionary – LGBT didn’t invent EVERYTHING!
<
p>
BTW – can you do an imaginary transcript of Hillary’s conversation with Norman Hsu for us as well?
is an LBGT term? I love this kind of stuff. Please do explain.
“throw under the bus” is an LBGT term?
<
p>
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m tired of people who might be presuming that “throw under the bus” or many of the other terms are GLBT. They aren’t.
however, in my experience, i’ve only heard it used in recent times by lgbt people describing the tendency of the dems towards lgbt’s. that is, until very very recently, when a few goopers seemed to have picked it up. my theory is that if this phrase had an earlier incarnation, it died out. it was revived recently on lgbt blogs as i’ve described. i can only guess that it has since been in use by goopers because they are reading the lgbt blogs. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
who cares though really, whether i’m right or wrong about who revived what turn of speech when? the thing is that thompson is laughable in his attempt to say on the one hand he won’t throw his friend under the bus while he is in fact doing so.
I was more interested in the etymology of the phrase, which I have used relatively often in casual converstaion for at least ten years.
<
p>
Of course, I still call things “neat” and “swell” so my usage doesn’t damage your assertion that common use of the phrase dies out in the slightest.
in 1994 and 2000.
Laurel – YOU use ‘LGBT’, and Raj uses ‘GLBT’. Is the divide between gay men and lesbians alive and well? We saw it on Cape during a primary between a gay man and a gay woman; a sort of weird who was gay-ER thing (the woman won, btw).
<
p>
And really, as Dad will attest, the term never died out amongst straight folk of every political persuasion.
potayto, potahto. who cares. use whichever you prefer, or some other letter order.
Laurel – YOU use ‘LGBT’, and Raj uses ‘GLBT’
<
p>
One of the primary national gay rights organizations is the NGLTF (National Gay & Lesbian Task Force). Note the order. I, for one, find it easier to type GLBT than LGBT, but, for various reasons for which I will be flamed, I prefer G&L. Although when necessary I append the “BT” to be PC.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, from my old copy of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) “gay” would adhere to Lesbians just as well as gay men, but, for a reason that Laurel might be able to tell you (I can not) female homosexuals choose to use a different appellation. Fine with me.
<
p>
Maybe “Boston marriage” would suffice for the Ls./tic