Fred Thompson: too sane to be President?

The message that Fred gave with resonate with the average Joe/Jane who is sensible to listen who is sick and tired of politics as we know it.

I guess what your saying is Fred needs to do is to do a publicity stunt, to take a motor cycle and jump a ungodly high ramp and do it in the name of Evel Knievel ? Sarcasm

” Wasn’t George Washington on of those racist, misogynistic, warmongering dead old white guys that my professor told me about in History 101? “
Good quality education you got there in public school ... lol.. Sarcasm

hope someone can show it at caucus but don’t know the rules. If it’s shown he’ll win many hearts and minds, that’s for sure.

A FREEPER wrote how the caucus works and there is no way that a 17 minute video can be shown. In fact, they only get two minutes to state their case and THAT IS IT. I hope that Fred is gathering his thoughts and is going to be concise and give a perfect 2 minutes.

Funny, yes. I realize a lot of people see virtue in losing. But right now there is very little real conservative input in the nominating process as it is being conducted. Even less clout on display.

The polling consistently shows Thompson/Hunter with no better than 20 percent of Republicans when combined. Presume they would do far worse among Democrats, and what do you have? You have a conservative movement that is all but dead, a hyper-minority, a “fringe” movement at best. Combine all this with the Senate losses in Virginia, Pa., and Missouri in 2006, and you are looking at a funeral. In the Senate, you have Jeff Sessions and that’s about it (off the top of my head). In the House there are some stalwarts but to go further they have to tack left, provided they look at these outcomes and numbers.

So, here’s the calculus. The further left the Dems tack (they’re Marxist-Leninist in everything but name at this point), the WEAKER the conservative movement gets. The acronym RINO was never meaningful to begin with, because the Republican Party establishment has never been conservative.

Why would a Huckabee emerge? Because the yawning gap that now seems to have opened is moderate-to-liberal former Democrats, that’s all. However many of these admittedly flimsy people (politically) there are, one thing is clear: Fred Thompson is not wowing them at this point. Most of the support for Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani is dependent upon the flimsy—in a one-on-one showdown, each one of these candidates would beat Thompson. Because McCain alone or Guiliani alone or Huckabee alone would bring most of the support the other two candidates have today.

Not raising his hand at the debate was a publicity stunt—in that it brought him some PR. How did he follow up on it? He followed up on it with nothing. The door was wide open to put the global warming hoax into a front-and-center position. The “stunt” got play but no substance followed. He shoulda been all over radio that week, bringing out some scientists to back him up, exposing the flim-flam of the Nobel committee and Gore, using supporters and operatives to advance the details of the hoax, illustrating how dangerous it will be if the next US president signs garbage like Kyoto, charts and graphs showing jobs that will be lost, etc. etc. etc.

What’s the central debate in the Republican nominating process? It’s which God is the real God, Huckabee’s or Romney’s. Wow. The MSM LOVES this crap. The Dems are out there packaging all kinds of goodies in Christmas wrapping for the voters, and the Repubs are fighting about God. Pardon the expression, but good lord.

Would it be a “stunt” to put the process back on a meaningful trajectory if to do so meant spending a week presenting a plan to cut the size of the federal government 2 percent per year for the first four years of a Thompson presidency? Why didn’t Thompson say, “I just don’t believe a word of this NIE” instead of trying to finesse it with all kinds of if/then’s? Look, Guiliani is much better at equivocating, he’s damn good at that, and I half-admire him for it because he’s proved he can govern liberals, not so easy a thing.

Being forthrightly conservative without equivocation is all the stunt it would require. Then, follow-up with facts, substance, realpolitik, GRASP. Change the topic, define the debate. You can’t just say you are Reagan. You have to BE him.

Saving the Republican Party

Our party can not survive unless we adhere to our basic conservative principles and nominate a person whose values lie in those principles and one that all Republicans will support. If we fail, history will record the death of the Republican party as occurring during the caucus primaries of 2008. This is not speculation on my part, but the opinion of many other experts in political science. Many republicans and independents would either vote for a democrat or abstain, rather than vote for anything less than a person with "true conservative" values.

Take a closer look at the candidates

Rudy Giuliani is intelligent and has proven himself to be capable as mayor of New York City, however Rudy is a liberal in every sense of the word. He is pro-abortion, pro-gay, and pro-gun control. I just can't vote for someone who "cross dresses" and marches in gay pride parades. He is liberal, no other way to put it. He would not represent the values of the Republican party and would not garner the support of all Republicans by any stretch of the imagination. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.

Mitt Romney is sharp, intelligent and on the face seems to be a good candidate to save the party. If you look closer you will find that in the past few years he has supported sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, supported pro-choice on the abortion issue, supported gay marriages and was elected governor of the most liberal state in the union. Mitt's Mormon religion is not a factor and should not be a factor in America. Mitt may have made a real change as he has stated and may have come to embrace a conservative views on the issues, but he'll have to prove it to me AND that may take years. Mitt might be make a good president for the republican party one day, but not in 2008. Mitt should wait a few years and give us the proof we need that in fact he is a "real conservative" as he says he is. The Republican Party would not be united behind Mitt in 2008, due to his religion. This is a shame , but a fact. We would loose to the Democrats in 2008 if Mitt was nominated.

Mike Huckabee is a good speaker, probably a nice guy and I'm sure an excellent preacher. Mike is conservative on only two issues, abortion and marriage. He is a populist liberal on all other important issues. His popularity base is evangelicals who can't seem to separate religion from electing the leader of the free world. . He was even endorsed by the Democratic governor of Ohio, who said that he reflected Democratic liberal views as well as the other Democratic candidates. He has even went so far as to criticize President Bush, calling his foreign policy "bunker mentality". Huckabee is a Democrat running as a republican, no other way to put it. He would divide the republican party and cause a division from which we could not recover. He is more dangerous to the republican party than having a democrat elected. Probably the most dangerous thing about Huckabee is his naivetie on how to deal foreign policy and the threats facing our nation today. To put it bluntly, he is ignorant on foreign affairs and the part the United States plays as being the premier world superpower and bastion of freedom. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.

John McCain is a true American hero and I honor and respect him for all he has given in the service of his country during the Viet Nam war. John is a conservative on most issues, but John tends to flip -flop on the issues. Last year he and the despicable Edward Kennedy were two of the main players in the Amnesty Bill that Pres. Bush was pushing down the throats of the American people. Thank God the people spoke up and the bill was defeated. If McCain was the nominated and elected I have no doubts that he would revive that very bill and the next time it may pass. I don't trust him to stop illegal immigration and therefore he gets "thumbs down" from me. He also tends to be a little "hot headed" at times. I'm not sure we need an emotional "hot head" with his finger on the button, if you know what I mean. The Republican party would not unite behind McCain due to a lack of trust. We would loose to the Democrats in 2008 .

Ron Paul...can you say "nut case"....Ron has a libiterian view of what the world and the US should be like. He is so far off having "true conservative" values, he is not worth discussion. The fringe radicals seem to like his message , much the way people who bought in to Ross Perot did some years ago. Ron's idea of US foreign policy is for the US to withdraw from everywhere and become an isolationist country and "everybody would leave us alone" Total BS. Ron could not unite the party, in fact he would cause a split. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.

Duncan Hunter..... A "true conservative" in every sense of the word. Duncan is strong on all conservative issues, especially illegal immigration. Duncan could unite the party behind him. Our party would have someone that all republicans could support. The liberal media has failed to get behind Duncan, which is what should be expected. They would prefer a republican candidate , like Huckabee, which would divide our party and be easier for the democrats to defeat next November. Duncan gets a "thumbs up" from me.

Fred Thompson. Fred is the only candidate that is conservative on all issues. He is a Federalist, meaning that he is a supporter of states rights and less government. Fred is the candidate that there are absolutely no negatives. He has never flipped his position on any issue. Fred is the one candidate that would appeal to every Republican. Ron Paul supporters might be the exception, but most of them are libertarian and nothing short of a revolutionary would please them anyway. Fred is for lower taxes, stronger military, anti abortion, anti gay-marriage, stopping illegal immigration and less government involvement in our lives, all main stay issues of the Republican Party. Fred is the only candidate in the list that could unite the party and defeat the democrats in 2008.

Just the Facts... check them out for yourself. America awaits your decision.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN'S

AMNESTY BILL FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS

Recently, John McCain did what may be unfairly called a flip-flop and admitted the American public was opposed to amnesty and withdrew his support of it reluctantly perhaps to save his campaign for President

Senator John McCain who possesses many fine qualities not the least of which is service to country in uniform and incredible suffering in defense of this nation, supported amnesty in the form of legislation defeated in Congress last summer largely in part because of the massive outrage expressed by citizens that is credited for rendering the Congressional phone system inoperative during the session. .

The illegal alien problem is the fault of the US government. It created the problem by refusing to fund adequate border security. It has ignored the Constitution and has not followed existing law.

McCain held hands with the liberal Senator Edward Kennedy, (D-Ma)
in support of illegal immigration less than a year ago . Now he's flip flopped.

What are we to believe?
If he's elected will he change his mind again?

Democratic Governor Endorses Mike Huckabee

Instead we have conservatives lining up behind Mike Huckabee because he agrees with them on two issues - gay marriage and abortion - neither of which the president can do much about. And all the while they ignore his liberal history as governor of Arkansas. If Huckabee is a real conservative, explain this: Since he's running in the Republican primaries for president, don't expect Mike Huckabee to be advertising the strong endorsement he just got from Ted Strickland, Ohio's Democratic governor.

It seems Mr. Strickland, who typically racked up a 95% rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action during his 16 years in Congress, has discovered a kindred spirit in Mr. Huckabee. He told the Cincinnati Enquirer last Sunday that Mr. Huckabee is a "combination of conservative views in some ways, but very, almost liberal views in other ways." Mr. Strickland concluded: "Of all the Republican candidates, Mr. Huckabee would be my personal choice."

NOW,,, THERE SHOULD BE NOT DOUBT IN YOUR MIND....HUCKABEE IS LOVED BY DEMOCRATS.

God save us if he is actually nominated by the Republican party, or should I say "former" Republican party ..if that actually occurs.

YOUR CHOICE This OR This.

NEITHER IS A PRETTY PICTURE

Can you really imagine this bunch in the White House?

HEEHAW, HEEHAW
Hey mom...what's for super? Pedro is back. He slipped over the border yesterday, do you think we can get Maria to cook up some her fine tacos?

I would rather vote for a Democrat than that....more government involvement...amnesty pushing... foreign affairs ignorant......Bush bashing....high taxing....parole giving...credential lying.....preacher hick from Arkansas. That's about it (sure I missed something)

Karl Rove might be right when he said to get ready for a Democratic era in the White House. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for a Democrat, no matter which party wins.