Posted on 07/23/2007 6:04:09 AM PDT by pissant
In the last six months or so, when my Democrat friends have engaged me in discussions about Hillary Clinton, at some point I usually ask them a simple question to gage their support, knowledge, and level of commitment to their candidate. The question is, “What has Senator Clinton accomplished in her life, in her career to qualify her to be President of the United States?”. And of course they know who I support and they generally know his amazing credentials and experience, so when I press them for answers to, “What has she actually done that sets her apart?”, I almost always get a totally blank stare, with no reply.
So I got to thinking about Fred Thompson. Many people are discussing Fred Thompson’s imminent entry into the Republican race for the nomination. More importantly, there are those who back him in that race. It is they to whom this blog post is directed; it is not directed to those visitors who are committed to Mitt Romney. I am only looking to the true Fred Thompson supporters for comments to be left on this post.
There are a number of questions that come to mind for any FT supporter to answer, such as:
– Why is Senator Thompson the superior candidate to be the Republican nominee in 2008? Specifics. – What specific leadership qualities make him superior to Mitt Romney? – What specific leadership experience qualifies Senator Thompson as superior to Mitt Romney? – We know the dozens of huge successes in Mitt’s career. What specific successes in Senator Thompson’s life or career are superior to those of Mitt Romney?
Please feel free to leave any comments you wish as long as they are specific. Your comments can be both objective (measurable) or subjective (qualitative).
To assist you in crafting your answers, here are some examples. An example of an objective answer to the above questions regarding Mitt Romney for instance is that “he has been an executive; a leader of large entities most of his career.” Another example of an objective answer is, “Thompson is an actor; Romney is not.” An example of a subjective answer, again referring to Mitt Romney, would be that “he is a better communicator than Senator Thompson”.
Poor or non-answers are things like, “Well, I just like him better!”. Though obviously subjective, that answer has no meaning except that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
This is a perfect opportunity and forum for all FT supporters to show the rest of us why their candidate is the best. Here is a forum in which many who visit this site either support Mitt Romney for President, or the visitors here are considering Mitt Romney’s strengths and attributes in relation to the possibility he might be the be the best candidate. So here is a perfect place for all supporters of Senator Thompson to come on over and give us all the specific reasons FT is more qualified than Governor Romney to be the chief executive of the largest entity in the world and in world history.
All I ask is that in your comments, you be very specific and provide facts where possible. You have obviously chosen to back, support, and promote Senator Thompson for President. You obviously believe Fred Thompson is superior to Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney and should be our (Republicans’) choice to run against the Democrat challenger. As you present your arguments, answers, and comments, please qualify them by answering the “why” question.
Your comments should be completely positive. What do I mean here? Your answers are about Senator Thompson and his superiority; this is not a forum to tear down and to be negative. If you would rather tear down or criticize any other candidates, including Mitt Romney, please go to another site. If you choose to leave comments of a negative nature, we may delete them. Please leave all the positive comments you wish in favor of Fred Thompson, but again, please be very specific and be clear as to how they are in fact superior by comparison and contrast. This is very simple.
Fred Thompson supporters: This is your opportunity to show us all why Fred Thompson the man, the leader, is superior to Mitt Romney.
~ Vic
More “humor” right?
So you're justifying Hunter's repeated votes in favor of the most massive entitlement expansion in our generation by saying that:
a. It's old news
b. Everyone else did it too
c. It's Bush's fault
Fred Astaire couldn't beat that tap dancing.
Oh, and by the way, while Hunter was on his spending spree and fighting every effort to control the checkbook, Fred Thompson repeatedly voted AGAINST the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. He also has consistently fought for entitlement reform and federal spending restraint.
So, no -- the issue isn't a dud in the slightest.
Buit Fred is getting the boys just by showing some leg. No one has any idea what he really looks like.
You’re right, but not everyone who reads this thread is a fencepost. And some people can read while others refuse to try. Is that your definition of a fencepost?
Thanks
No. I’m not. Hunter stands behind his vote. One more time: Hunter stands behind his vote. And I told you last time the I DO NOT support that vote. Where is teh tapdancing? Pretty clear?
FWIW so do Mitt, Fred and Rudy. I’ve yet to hear the ladies complain about it.
Better have a seat.
It was a thread from a month ago. Do a search for keyword fred. You’ll find it.
Thanks for the tip — that would explain why the vote links are still active, but those linking the actual legislation have expired. Is there any permanent link for legislation itself? I’m guessing not, since our critters are so profligate that even the internet can’t contain the rubbish they dump on us.
First, there's a new Fred site:
http://vets4fred.net/
FDT is facing similar conditions Winston Churchill faced with Hitler.
While FDT is no Reagan or Churchill, I think he possesses the characteristics of both men, the understanding of the seriousness of the threat from the enemy, the ability to convey the seriousness of that threat to the people, and the cajones to do the right thing at the right time.
At this point in history, I would prefer a Churchill.
*applaud*
Good response.
No, that one is deadly serious.
You don’t support his votes for massive entitlement expansion, but you justify them by saying that it’s old news, everyone does it, and it’s Bush’s fault. Then you make a baseless accusation against Thompson which you quietly drop without repudiating.
Singing in the rain....just singing in the rain...
Nah - Fredheads have a strange adoration for Fred and also for Reagan. I don’t see that same kind of ardor for Joe Biden, Sam Brownback, and others.
I honestly believe that to be so, we shall see.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Prescription drug bill: Hunter supported it. Stands by vote.
Now how the HECK does it get any simpler than that. You are asking me to justify it, when I said I do NOT support that vote. How the heck can I justify it when I oppose it. I’m just telling you your precious Fred is in teh same boat, just like on NCLB. They both were wrong.
First of all, let's look at the bill:
S1664
S Amdt 3820 to S1664: To provide exceptions to the sponsor deeming requirements for legal immigrants for programs for which illegal aliens are eligible, and for other purposes.
What does this translate to in citizen terms.. it is not granting benefits to illegal immigrants, it is basically saying that it isn't fair that illegal immigrants have more benefits that legal ones and it was an attempt to add a rider to S1664 that Legal immigrants get the same benefit that was attempted to be granted to illegal ones... NumbersUSA and other sites are falsely claiming that by supporting this amendment, Thompson and others were supporting S1664. Just the opposite.. at that, this bill was killed in committee and never made it to the floor of the Senate for an official yea or nae vote.
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.