Posted on 09/11/2007 10:17:51 PM PDT by goldstategop
Isn't it amazing they all have more important things to do to get elected President than to meet face to face with Christian and Jewish leaders who represent millions and millions of votes?
I tell you it is gut-wrenching fear that kept them away.
They are scared to death of the questions. They're scared to death they won't have a good answer. They're scared to death they might say something they will live to regret.
So, all four of the "front-runners" have decided "to play it safe."
Playing it safe means not showing up, making excuses for their absence and hoping they really can take all those values voters for granted. Surely, they will not vote for Hillary! Surely, they won't sit on their hands.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
>If Fred had been the only one of the Big 4 to go there, don’t you think that would have told social conservatives that he was serious about values?<
I was hoping FDT would participate in the Values Voters debate. There will be some substantive questions posed, and we, the voters, need to hear those answers in order to make a well placed vote.
If shying away from those questions isn’t the true reason he declined, it must be because he is just too “far above” the lower tier to bother. Yawn.
Double BAH !!
I won't vote FOR the Next Bob Dole because BOB DOLE DID NOT WIN !
I won't vote FOR the next FORD, BUSH, because they haven't ENDED Abortion !
If Roe-v-Wade can be overturned, the issue will go back to the states. At that point, we pro-lifers have a golden opportunity to make our case directly to the voters in our states, and may just change even more hearts and minds. We may never get to the point where all babies can be saved because most states' voters will require that exceptions be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, but that will stop about 98% of all abortions in those states. That is a far better situation than we are in today. And who knows, after a few years of that, we may even get to the point in this country where folks are ready to support a Human Life Amendment, but that is many years off.
Lie...
Lie, lie, lie lie !!
As Simon and Garfunkel would say...
First: Turning it Back to the States would mean 3 BAD things.
Bad #1... Some states WOULD enshrine in Their State Constitutions the ETERNAL DENIAL of the Personhood of the Unborn.
THAT is unacceptable.
Bad #2... The ONLY WAY then for the LIVING states to be FREE of that curse would be to pass a FEDERAL Amemendment which EXEMPTED THEM from the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Fred knows this... he's stated it straight out in the press.
Bad #3... This would mean fighting 50 USELESS State Battles and ALL the Political and Economic cost, and then... THEN having to pass a FEDERAL AMENDMENT ANYWAY !!
Second...
Years OFF ??
ANY PLAN would take years.... So blow that one out yer ARSE! If that is the only excuse you got. Even the CONFEDERATES did not say "Lets wait a bit" on slavery.
Ya'll are worse than them...
LOL What you're really getting sick and tired of is seeing your guy, Duncan Hunter, unable to get any traction in the primary campaign. That gets you mad. Good! I like seeing you angry Duncanista`s make fools of yourselves.
Fred Thompson is alive and well and challenging Rooty for the nomination. Out of all the candidates, Fred`s getting the most support from FReepers too. Two critical factors for winning elections is, likability and trust. We conservatives like Fred and we trust him.
I'm not willing to put this country at risk because some candidate doesn't agree with me 100%. It's a nice idea, and it would be great, but I'm not going to allow my non-vote, or vote for a third party candidate, with whom I feel more 'comfortable', to make it possible for a Democrat to sit in the oval office again. There is just WAY too much at stake for that to happen.
Honey, you can yell all you want, but it won’t make it so, it will only make you look ridiculous.
Who knows? Fred might choose him as his Vice Presidental nominee. That might put folks here in a bit of dilemma, though, huh?
You are making this WAY too personal. This is not an attack on you, or even an attack on Fred. Whether you or I advance and vote for anyone is incidental.
It is the 20 million that matter (20 million, BTW is probably an hugely underestimated number). We need to provide a candidate who is with them on all the issues, who is a stark difference from the liberal offering not only in word (which no one believes), but in deed as well!
On the war:
Hillary vs. Thompson
-Who will keep us safe? A career politician with no experience and a record that is nominally hawkish or a candidate with no experience and a record that is nominally hawkish...
Hillary vs. Hunter
-Who will keep us safe? A career politician with no experience and a record that is nominally hawkish or a candidate who is a war hawk, who chaired the Armed Services committee, who IS a warrior, whose family are warriors, and whose son is in the line of fire...
Look at the difference... No, REALLY look at the difference.
On Immigration:
Hillary vs. Thompson
-Who will close the border and seriously evict Illegal Immigrants? A candidate opposed to closing the border and prefers amnesty, or a candidate who says he will close the border, and says he is nominally against amnesty, but is quoted as "needing to provide a path to citizenship".
Hillary vs. Hunter
-Who will close the border and seriously evict Illegal Immigrants? A candidate opposed to closing the border and prefers amnesty, or a candidate Who has already proven the worth of border control by way of a border fence at San Diego, Who WROTE the bill providing for the extended border fence, Who has firmly railed against his party leaders and may of his peers to press for the construction thereof?
Just on these two points, not to mention MANY others, and to include the subject of this thread, Hunter provides a distinct and defensible difference, backed up by an unwaivering twenty year record. Every point of conservatism is defensible, and every point can be debated and won easily and with honor.
Mr. Thompson, OTOH, is without "bonifides" on several crucial issues- We must rely upon his word, rather than his deeds. It is easy to see that on those issues the distinction is no more than his word, and a big (R) after his name.
This is a weakness that we dare not afford, as with the other top tier candidates, not because of the weakness itself, but because that weakness leaves the voter with no real distinction between left and right. That weakness will either lead to an avoidance of an issue in debate, or a series of waffles to adjust the candidate's position, either of which are doom in an election where the major issue, the primary issue is TRUST.
The disaffected hard right will not base their vote upon popularity- They are all issues driven, and they do pay attention. Each faction has their own issues they defend, and the only way to get them all to vote en masse- to really "turn out" is to offer a candidate they will all endorse. One is not "taking a chance" with Hunter- one is "taking a chance" with TrudyMcRomson hoping that popularity will win over principle, and that chance comes with very long odds.
If we do not want a repeat of 06, we'd better offer up a conservative.
If folks want Her Heinous, they can continue dissing candidates who aren't their most perfect candidate, but DO have a chance of beating the Democrats. By doing nothing but complaining about how the viable candidates are not conservative enough, and threatening to not vote, or vote third party, they're only going to create a repeat of 1992. Folks don't realize how much their grousing just turns marginal voters off, and creates the opportunity for the wild eyed moonbat voters to have a greater influence on the outcome of the election.
Yes, I DO take it personally, because I don't want a Democrat in the White House. The stakes, both culturally and militarily are just way too high. My future, and the future of my family could very well depend on who is making the political decisions.
Here are some of the good folks that “front runners” are afraid of:
Paul Weyrich, founder and President of the Free Congress Foundation, Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum, Don Wildmon, founder and Chairman of the American Family Association, Judge Roy Moore, with the Foundation for Moral Law, Rick Scarborough, Vision America, and Mat Staver of Liberty Council.
Hopefully, the “front runners” won’t be “front runners” for long.
“The Dems don’t take their base for granted.”
That’s for sure. Dems kiss butts at Moveon.
You didn't hear a thing I said. I submit that those whom are considered "viable" due to popular support are not viable because the base will not support them, or will not support them fully.
What that gets you in the general election is a whole lot of purple "red states". The supposition that purple "red states" can be overcome by winning blue states is a non-starter.
You may accuse me all you like, it doesn't change that fact.
The problem is that this is a unique debate sponsored by some of the most influential social conservative organizations: such as Eagle Forumn, and The Free Congress foundation. If Thompson was serious about courting social conservatives and proving that he wants to get down and debate the issues this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to draw a distinction between himself and the rest of Rudy McRomney. Candidates who choose to dodge this debate while attending debates sponsered by the liberal MSNBC are clearly showing their disdain for social conservatives.
This debate will have a very different format from the other debates. First, it is three hours long, instead of the typical 1.5 hour long debates. This will provide more time for substantive answers. Second, many of the questions have been submitted by influential conservative leaders like Phyllis Schlaffly who are likely to eventually endorse a candidate. Third, after the debate there will be a straw poll taken of representives selected by these influential social conservative leaders. This straw poll will give a very good idea about which candidate has the support of the scoial conservatives.
All in all, Thompson made a huge mistake in choosing to snub religious conservatives - between this and his comments about his lack of church attendance and his dismissive responce to questions about the Terry Schievo case he is rapidly showing himself to be no friend of social conservatives.
Fred’s an adult. Fred can and is telling the American people where he does/will stand on the issues. If the American people can’t understand him - and need these kindergarten formats where the candidates perform like trained seals, in order to decide whether to back a candidate or not - then, to me, they have little ability to make informed, individual decisions in the first place.
By sitting out the election because your guy isn't the nominee, or even worse, by voting third party, you're showing that you don't really care if your values are upheld, you just want to punish the Republican party for not choosing someone YOU want.
Absolutely
I hope to he*l you Freepers out there that "taught the republicans a lesson" last election smarten up a bit this time. Thanks in large part to you, we have Reid, Pelosi and gang running amok over our country.
If you sit out the vote - you ARE voting. Your one vote less on our side will count for one vote more for the dimRats...the vote YOU gave them.
It seems to me that the sit-out voters who get their knickers in a twist if everything isn't 100% their way are demonstrating a colossal = and misplaced - sense of their individual importance.
"We stand together, or we fall apart" mt
...
Fred helped get Chief Justice Roberts in - and has stated that's the kind of Justice he would put in. or have you missed all that?
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.