To: Reaganesque
Mitt’s votes only cost about $450 each. Fred Thompson got over 200 votes without spending a dime.
Mitt = fewest votes per dollar
Fred = Most votes per dollar
Those are the facts.
So which one would you trust with your tax dollars?
46 posted on
08/12/2007 2:33:01 AM PDT by
counterpunch
("The Democrats are the party of slavery." - Cindy Sheehan)
To: counterpunch
>>>Mitt = fewest votes per dollar
>>>Fred = Most votes per dollar
>>>So which one would you trust with your tax dollars?<<<
Probably the one who wouldn’t be asleep at the wheel or AWOL when it came time to veto a Congressional spending bill. And probably also the one who would address the American people on the specifics on why he was doing what he was doing. :)
Mitt: 1
Fred: 0
To: counterpunch
My initial thought regarding Fred’s candidacy was that he was colluding with another candidate to kill the momentum from some of the other top tier candidates. Then that thought gradually evolved into thinking that he was legit and was playing a smart game by delaying his official announcement. Now I think this delay of his is more a sign of his inability to organize and run an efficient campaign - not a good sign. I’m getting to the point where I won’t even consider him.
Fred *really* needs to sh&t or get off the pot.
-Roscommon
To: counterpunch
Fred Thompson got over 200 votes without spending a dime. Mitt = fewest votes per dollar Fred = Most votes per dollar
An independent Fred Thompson group paid $10,000 for a table space at the Ames Straw Poll to advance Fred Thompson's position in the poll.
59 posted on
08/13/2007 9:41:24 AM PDT by
elizabetty
(The funding dried up and I can no longer afford Tagline Messages.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson