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
You didn’t answer the question: if as you claim, Bush’s mandate was the reason Hunter voted for the biggest entitlement expansion of our generation, how do you explain Hunter’s vote in favor of the Medicare prescrption drug entitlement in 2000?
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22003
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=22003
So are the other candidates.
Once more real slow....Hunter supports the Prescription drug bill. I already splained that Bush’s mandate or the common knowledge or anything else are not excuses. HE SUPPORTS IT.
Well said.
Here’s what you said to explain Hunter’s vote in favor of the Medicare prescription drug entitlement:
“Bush’s mandate is the only explanation that makes sense for an obstesibly conservative party to go along with it.”
You have not yet explained why Hunter voted for it in 2000, before Bush was even elected. In fact, you’re doing your best to tap-dance away from the question.
Tap-pitty....tap-pitty...tap...tap.
**************
That should never preclude making a post. See "Rights of Freepers", Book I.
“Bush’s mandate is the only explanation that makes sense for an obstesibly conservative PARTY to go along with it.”
Do you see the name Hunter in there?
One more time: Hunter supports prescription drugs for seniors. It does not get any clearer than that. Where have I said otherwise? Right, I did not.
You are conflating your misinterpretations of my textual backstory with Hunter’s position.
Are you asserting that Hunter is *not* part of the ostensibly conservative party that voted in favor of the prescription drug benefit???
One more time: Hunter supports prescription drugs for seniors. It does not get any clearer than that. Where have I said otherwise? Right, I did not.
Never said you did. I said that you were tap-dancing to try to explain his vote, which you are.
You are conflating your misinterpretations of my textual backstory with Hunter’s position.
Oh, your "textual backstory." No tap-dancing there.
You are chasing your tail, missy. If I thought Bush’s support or the rest of the GOP’s support, or for that matter my lack of support was an excuse for Hunter’s vote, I’d say so. It is not. Hunter is responsible for his own votes, just like Fred is responsible for puppy dogging McCain.
I’m just chasing the sound of your tap-shoes.
Let’s review:
In a discussion of Hunter’s votes in favor of the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, YOU brought up Bush’s mandate, and said “Bush’s mandate is the only explanation that makes sense for an obstesibly conservative PARTY to go along with it.”
When I asked how Bush’s mandate related to Hunter’s vote in favor of the Medicare prescription drug entitlement in 2000, before Bush was even elected, you avoided the question by preposterously asserting that you weren’t talking about Hunter, but about OTHER house conservatives who voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit because of the Bush mandate.
You then attempted to set up a strawman by denying something that I didn’t assert, namely: “One more time: Hunter supports prescription drugs for seniors. It does not get any clearer than that. Where have I said otherwise? Right, I did not” in an attempt to shift the issue away from your tap-dancing explanations of Hunter’s votes. (As a side note, you also rebranded our discussion of the biggest entitlement expansion of our generation as the very compassionately conservative “prescription drugs for seniors”).
Then you finish with this hilarious verbal dance step: “You are conflating your misinterpretations of my textual backstory with Hunter’s position.” Again, it’s not about Hunter’s position, but about your tap-dancing in re: Hunter’s position.
Tappity tappity tap tap tap!
lets review. You misinterpreted my verbiage about it being well known and me saying it’s “Bush’s mandate, I guess” as an excuse for Hunter voting for it. When you FIRST brought that up, I corrected you and said it was not excuses, and that Hunter voted for the bill becasue he supported it. (which I repeated multiple times since). So if I’m making “excuses” for Hunter, how is it that when first charged with that, I said no, Hunter voted for it because HE supported it and still does.
When you brought up his vote in 2000, my answer was the same.. Hunter supported it and still does. If he voted for it in 1996 (not sure if he did) than he obviously supported it then too.
So go back to my original statements: Its well known, Bush supported it, a gop majority supported it and Fred and co. obviously support it too. The ONLY things those do is give context to what kind of campaign issue it will be - Not whether Hunter is responsible for voting for it.
Cheers
If not as an attempt to partially exonerate Hunter by spreading the blame around (thus lessening the blame that goes to Hunter himself), what possible reason could you have to introduce these statements into a discussion of Duncan Hunter’s support for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement:
“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.”
Are you asserting that you were merely making idle conversation unrelated to Hunter? Why yes, that’s exactly what you asserted upthread. You are tapdancing on a whole new level.
If you had simply said from the beginning that Hunter supported it, you didn’t, you can’t explain his vote, and that’s that, then we could discuss how damaging Hunter’s vote was, but you wouldn’t have exposed yourself as a tap-dancer. As it is, you have tippy tapped from lame excuses, to denials that they were excuses, to denials that you were even talking about Hunter, to strawmen, to baseless diversionary accusations against Thompson (who as I said was voting against Medicare prescription drug entitlement at the same time Hunter was voting for it because of the Bush mandate — oh, right, not because of the Bush mandate).
You’re doing even more tap-dancing to deny that you’re tap-dancing than you did to begin with.
Fred was on Law & Order.
Angie Harmon was on Law & Order.
Enough said.
jas3
From your posts and pissant’s replies, it looks like Hunter is NOT a limited government type, which Fred is on this issue.
One of the things I appreciate about Fred, plus he supports the second amendment so well.
A real limited government conservative is Fred.
You did a really good job with these posts, clarifying this issue.
The prescription drug plan was well known. Only 10 GOPers voted against. LOL. Bush’s mandate, I guess. Yet to hear boo about it being repealed by Fred or Mitt or Rudy. So I guess that’s kind of a dud.
By leaving off/not comprehending the last two sentences of the above, I can understand why you would be confused. Those last two sentences make it pretty clear that I was talking about its value as a political issue. Nowere does it excuse Hunter's vote. It cannot possibly be making an excuse for the vote if I'm talking about the current climate of Rudy McRomenyson not asking for it to be repealed. In other words, it gives context to its usefulness of the vote as a political issue. Like I said in my last post:
So go back to my original statements: Its well known, Bush supported it, a gop majority supported it and Fred and co. obviously support it too. The ONLY things those do is give context to what kind of campaign issue it will be - Not whether Hunter is responsible for voting for it.
Sorry your comprehension is lacking today, but if you had just listened to the clearcut statement I made when you first were confused and queried me, then conversation would have been 4 posts instead of 14. LOL
If I went along with your version of events, then I'd be trying to make excuses for his vote. Alas, when challenged I set it in crystal clear languange that even a lib could understand: Hunter voted for the bill because he supported the bill.
Ellery did a real good job of conflating a political ramification statement into a one where I supposedly tried to obfuscate Hunter’s support of the Medicare drug bill.
“Best answer so far.”
Thank you, I aim to please. :-)
My apologies, then, though my reply was to the original post, which I did read in its entirety.
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.