Posted on 01/10/2008 9:13:54 PM PST by Jay777
Thompson exposes Huckabee as the liberal he is!
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
Fred was pro-choice back in the day, btw. Didn't want that to go by, as your post seems to be denying that by implication.
That doesn't bother me so much as it was long ago. He still intends that abortion remain legal in the cases of rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother though, which I must oppose.
“Fred specifically mentions two of the three legs of the Reagan Coalition.”
While I disagree that Thompson doesn’t consider the evangelical pillar important, his support by the other two pillars beats Hucakbee’s support of only the evangelical pillar.
“I think his championing of Chief Justice Roberts through the United States Senate was a pretty good example as to how he would yield that power as president.
Moderates, equally palatable to both sides of the isle are the usual champions of judges- Those known for their compromises.”
Your signature and your ideolgy are in conflict. You want compromise with the left, yet you attack Rudy and Romney for blueifying the red states.
What the heck do you think “compromise” accomplishes?
Just more proof that Huckabee supporters are truly confused about what their party believes.
No it doesn't, but it is neither here nor there, as neither can win without the other, and neither is palatable to the other.
My signature is sarcastic, and I attack Rudy, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson therein.
What the heck do you think “compromise” accomplishes?
Nothing whatsoever.
Just more proof that Huckabee supporters are truly confused about what their party believes.
I do not support Huckabee. I support Hunter, and I support the Reagan Coalition.
So now 2/3 is less than 1/3?
I’m sorry, but Huckabee voters are losing their minds.
I think you misunderstand what Reagan accomplished and the dynamics of his support.
The Christian Right outweighs the other two.
I’m sorry, but Huckabee voters are losing their minds.
No, they are voting their issues according to their hearts. That you would treat them so is unseemly.
So you don’t want moderate judges that look to compromise?
You are really confusing to debate with.
I would think that Hunter would want the type of judges that Thompson wants. Judges that don’t lok to penumbras and other nations laws for guidance, and judges that don’t try to write law.
I haven't misunderstood a thing. There are three pillars or legs to his coalition. "Small Government", "Strong Defense", and "Social Conservatism". Each must be satisfied with the candidate in order for there to be a win. Each candidate must stand upon all three legs. That is the Great Compromise, and beside that compromise, there should be no other.
“The Christian Right outweighs the other two.”
Again you assume that they support your candidate, which according to Hunter’s numbers is incorrect. Even taking the candidate that they have somewhat sided with, the majority of “religious” voters aren’t supporting one candidate.
“No, they are voting their issues according to their hearts. That you would treat them so is unseemly.”
Voting according to their heart is one thing. Refusing to pragmatically support the eventual winner of the GOP nimination if it isn’t Hunter or Huckabee is ludicrous.
Hell no. I don't know where you ever got that idea.
Thank you that was excellent if it wasn’t for some bully here I think Fred might be looked at differently.
Meaning because of the actions of a big bully here, it is hard to “See Fred” when being FORCED TO see Fred!
So you don’t want moderate judges that look to compromise?
“Hell no. I don’t know where you ever got that idea.”
What exactly did you mena in post #112 then?
It sounded like you wanted judicial compromise and moderate judges.
Roamer, sorry. After re-reading your post, I guess you are saying that Thompson is the moderate who is the champion of the judges.
If you think Thompson is a moderate then you haven’t been checking voting records.
I will give you that there is no candidate who matches Hunter’s voting record.
I do no suppose they support my candidate, I assume they do support Huckabee. Hunter's numbers have more to do with him being unknown than anything to do with his message.
Even taking the candidate that they have somewhat sided with, the majority of “religious” voters aren’t supporting one candidate.
True, but that majority is diffused between all the other candidates, where in Huckabee, it is nearly exclusive- Those supporting him are supporting him because he is Christian more than for any other reason.
Refusing to pragmatically support the eventual winner of the GOP nimination if it isn’t Hunter or Huckabee is ludicrous.
Well, I am not the pragmatic sort.
Huck's liberalism was exposed. He might have responded well in the debate, but he has been weakened.
“Well, I am not the pragmatic sort.”
So you must really hate politics then.
Not to anger you, but it is the take my ball and go home voters like you who give the Dems visions of sugar plumbs when they sleep.
And likewise, no offense to you, but it is your "pragmatism" that has given us a party so full of RINOs that they now unabashedly attack major planks of the party, and threaten to overthrow the Reagan legacy.
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.