Posted on 08/07/2007 7:36:00 AM PDT by Calpernia
If #5 is perfectly conservative, and #4 is less perfectly conservative, then #4 isn’t as conservative as #5. Thus, the adjective “moderate” certainly is appropriate in this case, meaning that #4 is a conservative position, but not as conservative as #5.
But actually, I’d also accept from a presidential candidate #6, which is roughly where Mr. Thompson falls out, since that’s what a president can effect, short of provoking a constitutional crisis.
sitetest
I don’t ever recall insulting you.
“And for Duncan Hunter, there are many youtube links...”
Actually, I went to a site that has a dozen or so YouTube videos of Mr. Hunter. Just to make sure that I’m giving him a fair assessment, I’ve been watching and re-watching them.
So far, my assessment stands. He’s a good man, a good, articulate speaker. He’s certainly saying lots of things that I like, and thus I’m inclined to appreciate his speeches and remarks because we’re in agreement. However, setting aside my own agreement with him, and trying to evaluate him objectively, I don’t think he’s in anyway compelling.
He reminds me of a good, competent SESer, not a presidential candidate.
That being said, I'd vote for him, and work for him if he were the nominee.
sitetest
Correct. Just like pregnancy. Either you are or you aren't.
Same for partisan registration. You either are or you aren't. Yes, the governor of California is a liberal but he is also a Republican.
The only thing that can be accurately said about individuals who aren't politically conservative is that they aren't conservative. They aren't bad or good. They're simply not conservative. Life's loosers. Life's unfortunate majority.
"I don't ever recall insulting you."
I didn't ping you to say that you did.
I was drawing your attention to insults offered by folks supporting your candidate.
We’d had a conversation previously about where this kind of nonsense originates. At the time, I told you that my impression was that it originated more from Hunter supporters than, say, Fred Thompson supporters. But I allowed as that perhaps I was mistaken, and I said I’d keep a closer eye in the future.
The posts from some of the Hunter supporters seem to support my original conclusion. I can see why Mr. Hunter is getting little traction.
sitetest
It’s YOU {pissant)I see posting scurrilous hit pieces like this piece of cr@p article.
If you’re going to forage in the manure, don’t be surprised if people tell you that you don’t smell so good anymore.
I've not once said anything false about Fred, yet have been called a liar by the vapors crowd on a regular basis. That said, I was happy to bash them back until higher powers said no.
“’It’s YOU {pissant)I see posting scurrilous hit pieces like this piece of cr@p article.’”
Yes, and when you pointed out that you weren’t the one who posted that piece of dreck, I apologized to you. However, there's a difference between an honest error and purposeful personal attacks.
But the larger point still stands.
"That said, I was happy to bash them back until higher powers said no."
From what I can see, the trouble usually starts on the Hunter side of things, as it is in this thread.
On this thread, I don’t think I’ve bashed either Mr. Hunter or any poster. Yet, the posts directed at me personally have descended to standards beneath that of actual conservatives.
Perhaps this is a small part of the reason why Mr. Hunter doesn’t seem to be able to gain any traction. Perhaps many folks unfairly associate his candidacy with his supporters.
sitetest
There’s that “you give Hunter a bad name” crap again. It’s ridiculous. Go look at some of your Fredheads’ behavior and get back to me. How do they treat Rudy supporters? Romney supporters? I never want to hear that lame argument again, frankly. If we were turning off so many people, WHY does the ping list keep growing?
regardless of the momentary erroneous assumption on your part of your old post, you said “scurrilous hit pieces” as if I was posting nothing but rubbish about Fred. When the majority of “cr@p articles” I’ve posted about fred were from very conservative folks such as Michelle Malkin, Patterico, Richard Vigeurie, National review. The couple of MSM articles I posted should have been and were treated with skepticism.
You may see it as “foraging in the manure” to justify the silly personal attacks on me. Fine.
Just don’t complain to ME when the shoe is on the other foot, especially since I’m not the one insulting you.
Go back and look at where the “trouble” of personal attacks started on those Fred threads. Calling Fred onto the carpet is not a personal attack.
I disagree, for the reasons already given.
"I’d also accept from a presidential candidate #6,..."
While I favor just about anything that reduces the scope and power of the federal government, I'm afraid candidates would use "states' rights" as a cop-out to avoid stating their honest position.
Quite so.
Don't worry, I had a very relaxing lunch break... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Oh dude, you are deprived of culture if you don’t know Boomhauer.
I think you spoke volumes in those few lines. It boils down to “if we don’t ‘believe’ what we believe”, why should anyone else? Cowardice is apt and then there is this nearly obsessive need to be on the bandwagon of a perceived winner. How is one a perceived winner? Polls and name recognition, that’s all any of the top 4 possess and the electorate is too apathetic and/or shortsighted to realize they are being shaped, molded and led by the nose, via the media.
It’s a bit like Global warming, a popular product to be sure and it gets plenty of play in the media. Forget the facts, it’s a crisis, it said so on TV! It’s popular and it “feels right” so people flex to conformity and spin the facts to make it fit so that they remain on the popular, winning side. After all, it’s a scientific consensus and they aren’t knuckle-dragging, flat-earthers. Character and courage of conviction are for one- percenter-types and not for them. :)
Oh! That guy on the cartoon propane salesman’s show? Oh! Ok!!! (wider evil grin)
That is one of his positions, perhaps his latest. One of his others was in the sourced article for this thread. For such a “straight-talker” he is ambiguous at best, and often appears indecisive and quite frankly, I fail to see his appeal.
Tanc is da man.
Hunter is as exciting as the Maytag Repairman.
>Cong.Tancredo’s campaign ship is still in the dock.....raised more money than Cong. Hunter...I’d rather see FDT in a debate with Giuliani.....If you want to stick with a campaign in dry dock, go for it.<
Rudy could probably clean FDT’s clock in a debate. Rudy is streetwise. Flustered Fred gets personal. Hunter is a point man, and knows his stuff, a gentleman calm and sure.
A ship in dry dock may be getting fine tuned to better survive the roughest seas, if you want to use metaphors.
For all practical purposes, the campaigning hasn’t even really begun yet.
Rep. Hunter is in this race to win. If he can win the primaries, he will win the general.
For those of you who want a leader who places his country above party, write your most generous check and send it to to: Hunter for President, 9340 Fuerte Drive, Suite 302, La Mesa, CA 91941-4164
I thank you. And your grandchildren will thank you,too. :)
************
(Sorry for the long delay in this response, but I’ve been talking Duncan Hunter to my Democrat Orkin man for several hours, and he is interested! He just left with a file folder full of Hunter information, bumper stickers and all!
Instead of asking if someone is a Democrat or Republican, I find it better to ask if they are conservative or liberal. I found today there is not much difference between a Democrat conservative and a Republican conservative!)
You're probably right, and that's why I trust him less than I trust Mr. Romney.
Duncan Hunter - my first choice by a mile. He is 100% conservative by every measure I can find. He has a strong, yet somewhat likable personality from what little I can tell. And is unabashedly in favor of protecting the USA and her Constitution. You could not genetically engineer a more perfect match to our beliefs here on FR.
Tom Tancredo- and interesting fellow who is 99.9% on immigration, but beyond that, his positions and platform grow rapidly fuzzy. I'm not saying that he is a bad candidate, but he just does not exude confidence on where he stands on any other issues.
Brownback - we might should call him flip-back. Totally unconvincing on his platform positions. Many changes of mind. A few interesting and positive comments he has made in the debates, but overall not impressive.
Rudy Giuliani - Other than appearing strong on the WOT, Rudy is every bit as liberal as the Dem. frontrunners. He is pro abortion, pro gun control, pro gay marriage, pro global warming myth, pro socialized medicine... do I really have to go on?
Ron Paul - I think this man has good intentions, but he has been drinking WAY too much of the Kookie Koolaide. From a fiscal point of view, he might be ok, and he generally is pro constitution. He is 100% on the correct side of immigration, but he is wrong on the WOT, and he has the personality of a limp fish. Add that to his nut-job image, and well... I think we get the point.
Mike Huckabee - the add currently running up North that goes into all the taxes (including gas taxes, nursing home bed taxes, and a miriad of other taxes) and asks which Arkansas liberal from Hope it is describing... and then points to Huckabee - is 100% correct. Huckabee is denying the ad is accurate, but those of us in Arkansas know better. He is fairly strong on gun rights, and is very much pro-family. But he also is a pusher of socialized health care, is a tax-and-spend crazy man, is wrong on immigration (he even supports free college tuition to illegals and thinks that illegals are entitled to all social programs). He also has a record of not only breaking his promises, but also of being far less than truthful if it will play well to the audience.
Tommy Thompson - Who? Seriously, this man has done little to do anything to stand out. I still know very little (partially the media's fault, I know) despite watching a couple of debates. I have yet to see any signs that this man stands firmly on any sort of convictions. He seems to be a warm body to occupy the space behind a podium.
Fred Thompson The non-candidate, candidate. Fred seems to be one to speak his mind. He acts as though he wants to be a conservative, although his voting record and history don't necessarily reflect that. He has a very likable personality and does well on camera. Fred does seem to be concerned with our country, but I am not convinced that he isn't just another pseudo-conservative who will continue our path towards one-world globalism. He talks a good game on immigration and border issues.
Mitt Romney - Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry. The man is not able to stand on one side of an issue more than 10 minutes without beginning to dance around. He has changed platforms and views more often than a TV with the channel up button stuck. He does have a personality that MIGHT be acceptable to some voters, but again - I just cannot trust anyone who has jumped around the issues as much as he has. And regardless of how one feels about his religion, the "Mormon Issue" will play into at least some voter's choice.
John McCain - Mr. Unstable. I am beginning to wonder if he is competing with Kim Jong Il of North Korea for wackiest leader. McCain is so wrong on SO many issues, and has made a serious effort to chop our Constitution into pieces. I in all honestly believe that the NVC brainwahsed him while he was a captive and have programmed him to be a "sleeper" for them. His actions in the last decade add up to politically unforgivable in my book.
Of the candidates above, the only one I could feel comfortable casting my vote for is Duncan Hunter. If Tom Tancredo were to fill out his platform in a meaningful way, he might be interesting - but I just don't believe he can get away from his one-horse team.
I will not vote for Rudy - period. A vote for Rudy is a vote for 4 years of Hillary by a different name. At least with Hillary, we know what we would get.
So - I will cast my vote for Hunter in the Primary election. If the General election comes down to Fred Thompson representing the Repubs, then I will probably hold my nose and vote for him.
But if Rudy, Huckabee, Brownback, McCain, or Romney are the candidate... I just don't think I can hold my nose tight enough to be able to push that button.
Bill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.