Posted on 08/07/2007 7:36:00 AM PDT by Calpernia
LOL!
So you DO support Duncan Hunter immediately, since it is clear that Fred has no intention of EVER declaring. He is not, and never has, nor ever will be, a candidate.
He has shown that over, and over.
And Richard Viguerie hammered the NAILS into the Fred Coffin. Fred is a beautiful speaker...who never walks the talk.
It's over.
I think his appeal lies in his positions on various issues, the trade imbalance, national defense, his personal field experience, his position on the House Armed Services Committee, his position on illegal invaders, his position on abortion. I don’t find him ambiguous at all.
You want ambiguity????
How about Rudy JulieAnnie?
1) Supported OUTSTANDING liberal Dems while an elected Republican Mayor, e.g. Jim Florio in New Jersey and Mario O’Cuomo in New York
2) Supported Gay “Rights” groups, marched in Gay Pride Parades and dressed in drag for public events
3) Supports National Gun Registration and a National Qualifying Test to own a firearm
4) Doesn’t seem what to say about abortion after a lifetime of supporting it.
5) Has a long record as mayor of New York in not cooperating with INS with respect to illegal invaders
6) Aside from walking around the city, did NOTHING of note with respect to 9-11.
7) Put his mayoral “command post” in the building owned by a buddy of his for a very high rent
8) Campaigned cross country with his other buddy Bill Clinton, pushing Clinton’s idiotic Crime Bill
9) Has a VERY stubborn, arrogant - almost fascistic streak that manifested itself MANY times while mayor of New York.
How about George Romney
1) Like George Bush II, from a family of limousine liberal RINOs
2) A Flip-flopper on many issues
3) Not supportive of the Second Amendment.
How about John McCain?
1) McCain-Feingold
2) Trying to sabotage efforts to put a conservative on the Supreme Court by collaborating with liberal Dems.
3) McCain-Kennedy-Bush Illegal Invader Amnesty and Rent-a-Slave Bill
4) Supports treating the vicious criminals and thugs from terrorist organizations as though they were legitimate prisoners of war captured in open warfare with an established government in accordance with the Geneva Convention - which they never signed and never would sign.
5) Really has a record of opposing tough measures against terrorists.
6) Is a egotistical, pugilistic, self-absorbed misfit and loose cannon who doesn't understand the First Amendment or Second Amendment.
How about Ron Paul?
Totally clueless on World War III with Islam.
Is it any wonder that Hunter has appeal? His biggest fault is the fact that he lacks the showboy appearance of those Toom Tabards Romney and Edwards (the Dem), and isn’t as eloquent a speaker as lawyer Giuliani.
But when you look at the bunch running, and analyze them as individuals - Hunter is far and away the most fit person to sit in the White House as President.
It’s true. Fredheads have been very turned off by attacks on Fred. haven’t seen any lies yet, but I’m sure there are a few out there.
But just as true, Romney and his supporters, Paul and his supporters, and Hunter and his supporters get turned off by attacks by Fredheads. IT’s the nature of the beast.
You can hold on to the “you’re giving Hunter a bad name” meme if you like. I’ll just keep accepting more to the PING list.
Huunter and Tancredo are both great men in their own way.
You shouldn;t be denegrating either of them.
Tancredo has sort of positioned himself as a one issue candidate. I KNOW he’s not, but that is the perception a lot of the public have of him. I’m supporting Hunter, but would gladly support Tancredo if he got elected. I think his position in the Senate as a vocal advocate for the rights of naturalized and natural born Americans against illegal invaders is a very useful one. He’s one of the few senators to buck Jorge El Segundo almost to his face on his Mexican proskenesis and recto-osculation.
“So you DO support Duncan Hunter immediately, since it is clear that Fred has no intention of EVER declaring. He is not, and never has, nor ever will be, a candidate.”
I disagree. Having received an invitation for a $1,000 per plate fundraiser for Mr. Thompson, I’m inclined to say that he’s currently running and will formally announce in September.
But time will tell.
sitetest
It should also be mentioned how clearly Mit Romney's feeble bootlack conduct...enabled the Massachussetts Supreme Court...with its obiter dicta...to rewrite Massachussets Marriage Law to compel recognition of "gay" marriage. Which could NOT have happened without its having a willing accomplice in the Governor's office to play this game of Three-Card-Monty with the voters...
“You can hold on to the ‘you’re giving Hunter a bad name’ meme if you like.”
LOL! That’s cute. ;-)
However, that’s really a secondary theme. While it’s true that some Hunter supporters are not helping Mr. Hunter’s reputation any, two more important issues for me are: to determine whether my vague initial impressions were off-base or not; to encourage comity among conservatives so that there isn’t a lot of ill will to overcome when the party starts coalescing around an acceptable candidate.
I could make much more striking criticisms of Mr. Hunter than saying he’s a competent speaker but not especially inspiring. However, Mr. Hunter is “inside the circle,” as it were. He is a candidate who should be acceptable to pretty much any conservative or Republican. Thus, folks should be careful about how they criticize him. Folks should especially avoid lies (I haven’t seen any myself about Mr. Hunter) and distortions (I saw some early on, but less-so recently) about Mr. Hunter. As well, personal attacks against posters who support Mr. Hunter should be avoided.
Similiarly, Mr. Thompson is “inside the circle,” too. He is a candidate who should be acceptable to pretty much any conservative or Republican. Folks should be careful about how they criticize him, and personal attacks against his supporters should be avoided. Unfortunately, I don’t see that sort of restraint by some Hunter supporters.
There are other candidates who are not so clearly “inside the circle,” or really are clearly “outside the circle.” Mr. Giuliani would run more truthfully as a moderate Democrat than as any type of Republican. Who knows what’s really up with Mr. Romney. And Mr. McCain appears to be insane.
Nonetheless, even here, it’s important not to lie or distort records, or attack fellow posters.
When I see folks post over and over that Mr. Thompson appointed Mr. Abraham as his campaign manager and thus Mr. Thompson is both anti-Israel and pro-open borders, or when I see folks say that Mr. Thompson’s marital history is little different from Mr. Giuliani’s, or that raising $3.5 million in 26 days is pathetic (how much has Mr. Hunter raised since announcing?), well, I equate that with early attempts against Mr. Hunter’s reputation to tie him to the Cunningham scandal, and other cr@p against Mr. Hunter.
sitetest
I agree its important not to lie and distort. But like everything, even facts are open to interpretation, at least about what that fact portends. For example, it is a fact that Hunter has supported a experimental VTOL plane with earmarks that has yet to prove itself worthy. Is that another example of porkbarrel spending or is it a sign of his commitment to cutting edge technology. It all depends on your view and understanding of Mr. Hunter’s career.
That is why we debate these things. The personal insults are not useful, for anyone, yet they seem to be a long standing by product of political discussion...going back to the days of the caveman.
In an ideal world, we’d have a concensus conservative to rally around by now. I know fred fans point to the current polls and say “we do, its Fred, quit wasting your time on a 2nd tier congressman”. Hunter fans respond “Sorry, but Hunter is the best man we’ve seen since RWR”. And so it goes, at least until the primaries approach.
Wildcatclan is a Hunter supporter.
“For example, it is a fact that Hunter has supported a experimental VTOL plane with earmarks that has yet to prove itself worthy. Is that another example of porkbarrel spending or is it a sign of his commitment to cutting edge technology. It all depends on your view and understanding of Mr. Hunter’s career.”
How about this for a novel idea? Because Mr. Hunter is a worthy conservative, why not give him the benefit of the doubt that HE THINKS this is a commitment to cutting edge technology, even if one disagrees with that view?
That’s what I mean about being careful how we criticize our candidates. I don’t agree with Mr. Hunter on absolutely everything. Nonetheless, I try to be careful in how I might disagree with his positions.
As an example, someone posted a link to GOA’s site about how Mr. Thompson is only a lukewarm Second Amendment supporter. I went to the site. Of the dozen or so “anti-gun” votes that he supposedly made, a bunch of them were only tangentially-related to Second Amendment, and ironically, he voted yes for some anti-terrorism legislation that MOST CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT, and was dinged for GOA’s perceived view that these were anti-gun votes. C’mon, pissant. That puts a candidate in the position of voting for it and being “anti-gun” or voting against it and being “anti-war on terror.” Is THIS what we want to do with our candidates?
That’s just pure cr@p. It’s worse than the attacks on Mr. Hunter’s “pork barrel spending,” which is bad enough. That kind of nonsense is pure circular firing squad stuff.
sitetest
Then, like you did about the GOA’s take on Fred and I did about the MSM articles posted here on the VTOL program, you dive in and defend the man and make the case. And if your case is strong, then you win the day. But you can’t expect primary rivals not to explore the perceived weakensses. As this race heats up, the arguments for and agin these guys that are hashed out here will have to be used at some point in the campaigns themselves. Truth should always be the goal, but there is no way to ever kill off the various interpretations of the meaning of facts.
For example. Mitt is a Mormon. That means completely different things to different people.
Hunter has 26 years as a congressman. Is that good or bad?
Fred was McCains campaign co-chair in 2000. Good or bad?
You see what I’m driving at.
The difference for fredheads and Hunter fans is this: Fred is sitting in a far supererior position to compete as of today. He needs to concentrate on being better than Rudy and Mitt and McCain. Hunter OTOH, has to do everything possible to even become known, convince us that he is better than the other 2nd tier guys, and differentiate himself from the frontrunners, including Fred. And it is Fred’s supporters, generally more conservative than the other big three supporters, that Hunter will have to target.
ZULU, you got some good info out there so it’s win-win. In the future I will try to be more clear. :) I probably should have used, “Ambiguous, Huckleberry-Hound circumlocution” or AHHC as it is more commonly known.
I think in the future, I should do all I can to be as clear as I can, if I can, to the extent I can, and then ya’ know, the people and stuff.
As the polls supposedly showing...but just as I don't accept their assertions on Hunter, I also wouldn't make them a reliable barometer of Mr. Thompson, whom I do like.
Just not for President.
Wait until the guy actually has to be on the same stage. But I am predicting we won't see that.
haven’t seen any lies yet, but I’m sure there are a few out there.
Ditto. I am not sure what sitetest is alluding to either. Is he protesting the facts cited by Richard Viguerie?
Phwew. Glad you did not jump ship. We are just starting to cook now.
Fred may be a great candidate, we shall see. But IMO, if the way he handled the abortion lobbying kerfuffle is going to be standard operating procedure, he’s going to get clobbered.
Regardless, it is Hunter who is starting to get the serious buzz.
If Hunter is on the ticket (I HOPE!!!!) I expect Limbaugh to endorse him at that point.
Limbaugh claims he is through carrying water for the GOP. Time for him to promote the conservatives in this race. Even if its promoting both Fred and Hunter, that would be a good step.
“Then, like you did about the GOA’s take on Fred and I did about the MSM articles posted here on the VTOL program, you dive in and defend the man and make the case.”
Perhaps I think more highly of conservatives than I should.
The GOA stuff was so stupid that I’d expect anyone with an IQ over 85 to see that it was nonsense. Literally, Mr. Thompson received negative “anti-Second Amendment” votes for voting for national security legislation.
Any conservative who falls for that is either stupid, or isn’t paying any attention at all to the substance of the charges made, but rather, just looking for something which to beat the other candidate about the head. Perhaps a few of the posters really aren’t all that bright, I don’t know. But I don’t think you, as an example, fall into that category. Nonetheless, correct me if I’m wrong, but I vaguely remember that you gave a favorable acknowledgment to that link or the data from it.
“But you can’t expect primary rivals not to explore the perceived weakensses.”
It’s one thing to explore perceived weaknesses, it’s another thing to deny the benefit of the doubt to fellow conservatives. It’s one thing to explore perceived weaknesses, it’s another thing to promote lies, whether intentionally or through lack of looking at the actual data. That’s what I mean about trying to be careful how we criticize these folks.
“For example. Mitt is a Mormon. That means completely different things to different people.”
That’s a fact. However, even though I think that Mr. Romney is probably a fraud, I don’t see his religion as being an appropriate primary issue in the campaign. Folks ought to knock that stuff off.
“Hunter has 26 years as a congressman. Is that good or bad?”
There is a fact there.
But saying that Mr. Thompson is “anti-gun” because he voted for anti-terrorism legislation is a lie.
“Fred was McCains campaign co-chair in 2000. Good or bad?”
There is a fact there. But saying that Mr. Abraham was appointed campaign manager is a lie. And that lie was repeated for many days after being exposed a lie. And saying that Mr. Thompson is anti-Israel because he asked Mr. Abraham to be a liaison to Congress, and to help build the infrastructure of his campaign (a technical task apparently at which Mr. Abraham has shown some skill in the past) is a lie. And to suggest that Mr. Thompson is pro-open borders because of the Abraham appointment is, at the very best interpretation, a gross distortion.
Yet, these lies and distortions continued for quite some time after they were knocked down repeatedly here on Free Republic.
Those kind of lies are corrosive. Posters have some responsibility to avoid posting or endorsing them.
“Hunter OTOH, has to do everything possible to even become known, convince us that he is better than the other 2nd tier guys, and differentiate himself from the frontrunners, including Fred. And it is Fred’s supporters, generally more conservative than the other big three supporters, that Hunter will have to target.”
Yeah, but by being sloppy and not noticing that one is telling or spreading lies or distortions (or perhaps even doing it on purpose), Hunter supporters aren’t doing their candidate any favors. If you think it helps peel me away from Mr. Thompson when I check out the allegations and find lies, you’re wrong. If you think it helps Mr. Hunter’s candidacy when Mr. Hunter’s supporters, without provocation, lower their standards and start to personally attack posters who disagree with them, you’re wrong.
If, miracle of miracles, Mr. Hunter were to actually win the nomination, I suggest to you that the tactics on display here will not increase the enthusiasm of former Thompson supporters for Mr. Hunter, but rather will cool it. Lying and distorting Mr. Thompson’s record, and attacking his supporters is not how to win friends and influence people for your candidate.
sitetest
He doesn’t want to run the party, he wants to shape the ideas and ideological philosophy of the American electorate.
Sorry, I get too serious about all this stuff myself at times.
Humor is the only thing that will keeep us alive. Besides the Libs and Dems are the ones with no sense of humor.
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.