“The game plan was just to let the other guys step up and to learn to play without me and Paul (Desiderio). That was really our game plan,” he said. “That was really the reason why he rested me in the game.”READ: Sara, also-ran Batangas stun Cafe FranceFEATURED STORIESSPORTSEnd of his agony? SC rules in favor of Espinosa, orders promoter heirs to pay boxing legendSPORTSBreak new groundSPORTSMcGregor blasts Cerrone in 40 seconds in UFC returnWith the team’s leading scorers only playing for a combined nine minutes in the game, Cafe France fell to also-ran Batangas, 91-69, as it stumbled to the playoffs on a two-game losing skid.Still, Ebondo said that the slump wasn’t any reason for the Bakers to fret knowing that it holds a twice-to-beat edge in the quarterfinals. Panelo: Duterte only wants to emulate strong political will of Marcos Duterte promises to look for funds to establish rail transport in Cebu Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Marcos monument beside Aquino’s stirs Tarlac town ‘Bad Boys for Life’ debuts so good with box office top spot LATEST STORIES Prince Harry: ‘No other option’ but to cut royal ties Sara, also-ran Batangas stun Cafe France ‘It’s not my shame’: Why Filipino women are calling out sexual misconduct on social media ‘1917’ takes top honor at the Producers Guild Awards Filipinos turn Taal Volcano ash, plastic trash into bricks PLAY LIST 01:40Filipinos turn Taal Volcano ash, plastic trash into bricks01:32Taal Volcano watch: Island fissures steaming, lake water receding02:14Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard02:56NCRPO pledges to donate P3.5 million to victims of Taal eruption00:56Heavy rain brings some relief in Australia02:37Calm moments allow Taal folks some respite MOST READ PBA IMAGESCafe France couldn’t care less about what the result of its final elimination game against Batangas on Monday.Congolese Rod Ebondo shared that with the Bakers locked in at third place, there was no reason for coach Egay Macaraya to exhaust his wards going to the playoffs.ADVERTISEMENT Taal Volcano evacuees warned against going home Palace: Crisis over ABC-CBN franchise unlikely “We have a game on Thursday and coach just wanted to rotate the players, especially if ever it happens that I get in foul trouble,” he said.However, Ebondo said that Cafe France must pick up itself from these recent string of losses and shift its focus to the playoffs, where it’s still awaiting its quarterfinal date.“We just have to forget about it and move on,” he said. “If we lose on Thursday, we will have a do-or-die, so now the competition is tough. We just have to forget about today and move on and focus on to the quarterfinals.”ADVERTISEMENT Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. View comments
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 that political contributions are incipient bribes – but that bribery begins with contributions larger than $2,300. Which brings us to the financial implausibility of his late-starting campaign. Suppose he does something unprecedented – gets 100 people a day, from now until Jan. 1, to contribute the permitted maximum of $2,300. After subtracting normal fundraising costs and campaign overhead, he would still enter 2008 vulnerable to being outspent at least three-to-one by his major rivals. Is there, however, a huge cash value in the role for which he is auditioning – darling of religious conservatives? Perhaps. But their aspiring darling recently said in South Carolina, “I attend church when I’m in Tennessee. I’m in McLean right now. I don’t attend regularly when I’m up there.” New Coke was announced on April 23, 1985, with the company’s president piling on adjectives usually reserved for Lafite Rothschild – “smoother, rounder yet bolder.” Almost 80 days later, the public having sampled it, the company pulled the product from stores. Perhaps Thompson’s candidacy will last longer than New Coke did. George Will’s e-mail address is [email protected] 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! Fred Thompson’s plunge into the presidential pool – more belly-flop than swan dive – was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged. Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: “When you look at the other current crop of candidates – Republicans – where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?” Thompson replied: “Well, to tell you the truth, I haven’t spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions.” He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported – the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know. Thompson said he had advocated McCain-Feingold to prevent, among other things, corporations and labor unions from “giving large sums of money to individual politicians.” But corporate and union contributions to individual candidates were outlawed in 1907 and 1947, respectively. Ingraham asked about McCain-Feingold’s ban on issue ads that mention a candidate close to an election. He blamed an unidentified “they” who “added on” that provision, which he implied was a hitherto undiscussed surprise. But surely he knows that bills containing the ban had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress before passage in 2002. 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 in June declared unconstitutional. 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’ 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.