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
OK, different bill than I posted.. let me check this one.. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is in the same boat..
My admiration for Ronald Reagan could only be described as fanatical to the extreme.
I did not use On the issues or anything else. That was the congressional record text I posted.
Thank You Thank you ***Bowing***
Interesting bill.. I may want to look more into it because of the 6 Nays, 5 are Republicans and most of those have strong anti-illegal records..
Look who the pubbies are. LOL
I’m not asking you to justify it — I’m saying you *did* try to justify it, by saying it was old news, everyone did it, and it’s Bush’s fault — right here on this thread. Now you’re denying that you tried to justify it.
Tappity tappity tap tap...
I believe your post#22 was the first one to bring up flip floping. If voting for the biggest spending bill sense SS ain’t a flip for a conservative what is.
I never said it was old news. I NEVER EVER use that excuse. And I never blamed bush for Hunter’s vote. My Bush mandate comment was a sigh of disdain, not a “by golly he deserved” it comment
It is one of a few things he has been absolutely right on, But he has a tin ear on just about everything else. I think John’’s time has passed him up.
I’m not defending Hunter voting for prescription drugs anymore than I’m defending the GOP and Bush as a whole for pushing it. But its hardly a flip. Apparently the GOP had been trying to get this done since the days of Reagan.
Well, he has good stances at least on pork-barrel and spending, judges and abortion. And on THE issue: Iraq.
Not really. Not until the Iraq troops were sufficient in number to be of use.
I don’t recall t it being brought up by the GOP till 2004. Point is it’s always risky to bring up individual bills. All politicians have votes they wish they could take back or votes they did for reasons other than really supporting a particular vote. Fred and Duncan are no different. Thats why we have to judge them on their overall record.
I agree with that. But it passed in 2003. Bush stumped in the 00 campaign for it saying he was the leader who would finally get it done after all these years because he was a “leader”. He did just that.
As do most of the other republicans but they don’t have immigration and McCain Feingold to explain away.
“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...”
Thank you ellery for that excellent post. Deserves a bump.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r104:1:./temp/~r104FLSz4Z::
(b) Exceptions: Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to the following benefits:
(1) Emergency medical services under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(2) Short-term emergency disaster relief.
(3) Assistance or benefits under the National School Lunch Act.
(4) Assistance or benefits under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
(5) Public health assistance for immunizations and, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that it is necessary to prevent the spread of a serious communicable disease, for testing and treatment of such disease.
Basically, it prohibits benefits to illegals except, it also grants benefits to illegals like lunch programs, medical, generic 'disaster relief', etc.. are you for granting these things to illegals?
You can say by voting Nay that he voted to give benefits, but by voting Yea for this bill, if you look at the exceptions, you are also voting to give benefits to illegals.. This amendment is a lose-lose and no matter how someone voted, the same thing could be said..
This is one of 150+ amendments to the Welfare Reform Act.. and if you go through how Thompson voted on those amendments, it seems pretty consistent that he voted consistently conservative.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d104:./temp/~bdaVGcx:1[1-244](Amendments_For_H.R.4)&./temp/~bdQ1N5
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.