Gotta' Make the Donuts... Gotta' Make the Donuts...
Yours must be an unenviable task.
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
Here’s what you said:
A. “The prescription drug plan was well known.”
If this wasn’t equal to an “it’s old news” comment, then what did you mean by this?
B. “Only 10 GOPers voted against. LOL.”
i.e., don’t blame Hunter completely — everybody’s doing it. Or did you mean something else?
C. “Bush’s mandate, I guess.”
i.e., if Bush hadn’t pushed it, Hunter would never have voted for this.
Tap-dancing. And now you’re tap-dancing to try to deny your tap-dancing. You are, in fact, meta-tap-dancing.
Many Republicans, including Senator Fred Thompson, voted for McCain-Feingold. But, ok, McCain has many flaws, but he’s right on the main issue.
But since you’re the one who posted this. let’s look at Duncan Hunter’s record. What in Hunter’s record shows him to be a fiscal conservative who will constrain the growth of government? What has Hunter ever accomplished in his life except feeding at the federal trough as a career congressman?
Why are all of the Fred Haters/Duncan supporters just bitter old Buchanan Brigadiers who still haven’t gotten over 1996?
Well known = common knowledge, not that it does not matter or that it is old. It is well known that Reagan signed a 1986 amnesty. Don’t make it smart or desirable, just well known. :o)
Only 10 GOPers voted against meaning the other 100+ “conservatives” saddled us with the turd.
Bush’s mandate is the only explanation that makes sense for an obstesibly conservative party to go along with it. But you can read into what you will.
To recap: Hunter supported and still supports. Pissant does not support that or any other welfare.
Excellent post and analysis. It’s not enough to know the title of the bill and how someone voted on it. Thanks for the info.
Again, apply this to your own candidate. What has Hunter done in 30 years other than cast votes?
Are you now prepared to back Romney?
Sorry charlie, that dog don’t hunt. Those were already mostly existing. This was for further restrictions not added bennies. I laready checked that out.
i.e., no point in discussing Hunter's support of prescription drugs, since it's common knowledge?
Only 10 GOPers voted against meaning the other 100+ “conservatives” saddled us with the turd.
Actually 19 conservatives voted against the 2003 bill. But that aside, what could you have meant by making this point except that you were trying to disperse the blame? It's the classic kids' tap-dance -- "don't blame me -- Johnny did it too!"
Bush’s mandate is the only explanation that makes sense for an obstesibly conservative party to go along with it.
Then how do you explain Hunter's vote in favor of the Medicare drug entitlement in 2000? Careful, your feet were moving too fast and you tripped a bit.
“If Pat would have had all of that special interest money, if Duncan had a TV show, if Ron Paul wasn’t crazy, oh the possibilities!!”
Why do I have a feeling you would have found a way to say this was ‘supporting illegals’ no matter how the vote went..
Nope. You read more into it than is warranted.
Did i not tell you last time you mentioned prescription drugs that Hunter supported it and I do not? Why yes I did.
You can disperse blame for the bill, because OUR party gave it to us. That does not mean that Hunter is guilt free, only that he is in “fine” company. Take that how you want. Another example along similar lines would be the bill to create the Dept of Homeland security. You can pin blame on Hunter, certainly, but it doesn’t do much good to differentiate him from his colleagues. But carry on.
Bottom line is Hunter stands behind it, no matter what you think about my text here. Unlike Fred who is the adept tapdancer on numerous topics.
Gotta' Make the Donuts... Gotta' Make the Donuts...
Yours must be an unenviable task.
Emergency medical, I do indeed. Other than that, no. But you have to look at what illegals were receiving in places like NYC (Rudy’s sanctuary) to understand the scope of the problem.
No, it’s fun.
No, this thread was started by an angry bitter Duncanista. He hasn’t offered one iota of evidence of why a two-face flip flopper like Romney would make a good president, but you’re welcome to try.
Yes. And he's been spending like a whore ever since.
I haven't seen any evidence of whom he supported in the run-up to the election, although that's when his house tragically burned in the fires, so he had his hands full.
Earlier on, before Schwarzenegger threw his hat in the ring, Hunter supported Richard Riordan.
Yes, on things that the weak kneed sister in the GOP tried to cut along with the dems: C-17s, SDI, funds for central american anti-commnists, border patrol officers, detention facilities, ammunition, Tomahawk missiles, MX Missiles, border fences, larger navy, etc etc. Like I said, thank the good Lord.
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.