Posted on 03/10/2007 5:04:29 PM PST by FairOpinion
Well I lived under Lindsay, Beame, Koch and insufferable Koch and than Rudy when Moscow on the Hudson show light!
All this hissy, hissy fit of yours is because you fear because someone says something trueful and possitive about Rudy it will improve his changes for the nomination.
boy you are bankrupt!
Wonder if you know who the leading talk show person was for years in NYC?
NO one on the Rudy ping list has said they would jump to Thompson.
FairOpinion wrote: "Fred Thomsons (sic)on the Issues..."
That chart doesn't mean squat. It reminds me of the one on the "Political Quiz" website, where You're charted as a libertarian almost no matter how you answer the few questions, LOL. Look at FDT's actual votes.
Fred Thompson consitently voted for business, against higher taxes, for a balanced budget, for ANWR drilling, terminating CAFE standards, for capping foreign aid, for free trade, for private property rights, for personal retirement accounts and for welfare reform. He was rated 100% by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 90% by the League of Private Property Voters, 97% by the National Tax Limitation committee and 88% from the National Taxpayers Union. That, my friend, is an economic conservative.
Fred voted consistently against abortion, for gun owners, against the gay agenda and for school vouchers and educational savings accounts. He was rated zero by National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action, zero by the American Federation of Teachers, just 6% by the National Education Association, zero by Americans for Democratic Action and only 11% by the ACLU. That is a social conservative.
FDT consistently voted for homeland security issues, for law enforcement, for a national missle defense shield and other military appropriations, and for using military force against Iraq. And that is a security conservative.
In addition, Project Vote Smart listed Thompson as having supported Contract With America items 100% of the time, and his 2002 American Conservative Union score was 89 (Duncan Hunter's was 88 that year). The NRA called him a "staunch supporter of the Second Amendment." The National Journal describes FDT as "a conservative [who] has a record to back it up." Intellectual Conservative says Fred "has been consistently conservative on social policy." Human Events calls Thompson "A Conservative Who Can Win." The American Spectator refers to Fred as "solidly conservative." Now that's a conservative's conservative!
Nice try to paint FDT as something other than what he is - a conservative's conservative, but as Hillary said to Bill, "No cigar." Care to try again?
areafiftyone wrote: "How quickly the so-called conservatives will stab their conservative guy (Duncan Hunter) in the back for a TV Star."
It not a stab in the back and you know it. Duncan Hunter has an almost perfect conservative voting record in the House. But what good does that do conservatives if Hunter can't get elected? He's way too long a long shot.
James A. Garfield was the last incumbent member of the House of Representatives to be elected President. Do you know how long ago that was? Nearly a century and a half ago in 1859, LOL!
And Hunter is not without baggage. He accepted money from many of the same sources that Randy "Duke" Cunningham did, and Cunninham is in jail. Cunningham and Hunter worked with ADCS Inc. and Audre Inc. to force the Pentagon to pay for converting printed documents to computer files. They persuaded other lawmakers to get Congress to allocate $190 million for 'automated data conversion' projects from 1993 to 2001. Only problem was, the Pentagon neither wanted nor needed these services becauses, according to a 1994 General Accounting Office report, it already had the hardware and software required for that kind of document imaging. But Cunningham, Hunter and Jerry Lewis didn't seem to give a hoot. Audre and ADCS were generous with contributions to all three Congressmen.
Now I personally don't have any reason to believe that Hunter is some kind of crook. But you know what the Dems would do with that kind of ammo. Heck, forget the Dems for a moment. You know what Hunter's GOP primary opponents would do with it!
Sorry, Duncan Hunter is unelectable to the presidency. And that's the name of that tune.
FairOpinion wrote: "That's why I am supporting Rudy -- he is a leader, which is what we need during the war against terrorists AND he can beat Hillary. President Hillary would destoy the country."
I admire Rudy for his stance on the war and for being tough on crime. I also admire Joe Lieberman for the same reasons as well as his unqualified support for Israel. I'm sure they would both be great guys to share a brew with in a pub and engage in enjoyable conversation. Either one would be a great Ambassador to the UN in the next administration.
But I wouldn't want either one of them naming replacements for Stevens and Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court. Rudy and Joe are both too liberal on social issues for me. Abortion is murder, and they both support it. The right to keep and bear arms is a right, and neither of them seem to recognize that right, even though it is clearly stated in the Constitution. Both are far too willing to cave to the gay agenda and grant special rights to less than 5% of the population who do not qualify for those rights.
There are only a few issues I don't agree with that Fred Thompson holds. There are only a few issues I do agree with that Rudy holds.
Fred Thompson would destroy Hillary in the general election. Just the sound of his smooth, but authoritative baritone voice contrasted with her shrillary would be enough to sway many undecideds to Thompson's side, LOL. But when it gets down to the issues, he really beats her hands down. Plus, all of her baggage from the past is going to be dredged up again...
End of story.
WHat's funny is that I don't remember any pure Hunter supporter out trashing Fred Thompson -- but the Rudy supporters are trying to convince the Hunter supporters that they should be upset about Fred Thompson.
One of the running gags of the Giuliani years was ‘‘the bunker’’ — press shorthand for the $15 million Emergency Command Center the mayor built on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center in 1998. The bunker symbolized the mayor’s bunker mentality — his love of crisis, his almost delighted sense that a besieged city needed an untiring and unsmiling defender.
Now that bunker lies in a great heap of rubble. On the morning of the disaster, which infinitely exceeded even his own direst imaginings, the mayor and his chief aides abandoned the Emergency Command Center for another installation and fled that one in turn only 10 minutes before it was destroyed, killing the men who stayed behind. In the news conferences he gave that afternoon, the mayor spoke of his own escape from death and of the many friends who had died. There was a delicacy in his manner, an anxious concern for the sufferings of others that few had ever associated with him. Giuliani’s stoicism in the past had seemed to come of unfeeling; this was the stoicism of deep feeling held rigorously in check.
At one point during the day, Ed Koch, the former mayor, suggested that America obliterate the capital of any nation that continued to harbor terrorists. You couldn’t help feeling grateful that Koch was no longer mayor. Mayor Giuliani issued no such threats. Quite the contrary: he assured New Yorkers that the Bush administration would find the appropriate response, whatever that was, and urged them to refrain from all forms of hatred, especially ‘‘group hatred’’ directed at Muslims. And then he apologized for having even to suggest something that was beneath the dignity of New Yorkers. The mayor is normally the least graceful of men, but on that day he brought to mind Hemingway’s phrase ‘‘grace under pressure.’’
The time will come when our sense of crisis will settle into a kind of permanent substrate, and New Yorkers will return to their perennial concerns — the schools, the streets, the parks. By November, when voters choose a new mayor, they may not regard grace under pressure as the cardinal mayoral virtue. You could, in fact, argue that by defusing New York’s fixed atmosphere of crisis, Mayor Giuliani has made the city safe for a very different kind of successor. The candidates might embrace this logic themselves if doing so wouldn’t implicitly diminish them.
Indeed, the World Trade Center disaster magnifies the widespread sense that the men hoping to succeed the mayor are smaller than he. But we should remind ourselves that Giuliani himself wasn’t always so magisterial a figure; the hothead candidate of 1993 probably could have started a nuclear war on his own. The crisis shapes the man as much as the other way around; he is, if he has any substance at all, fired in the crucible of office. Giuliani’s bearing at this moment of anguish ensures that he will be remembered fondly, at least by many; New Yorkers can hope that the man they elect may someday surprise them with the same gifts.
One would expect a Conservative who makes a living in Hollywood to be less than 100% "pure" - aka the only kind of Conservative certain FReepers seem willing to accept (and once accepted are not held up to any other standard.) But these "purists" don't live in the real world.
I'm not on the "Rudy Ping List" so I don't know which members that emcompasses. I know that some people who previously argued for Rudy in all the threads have said "I'm a Rudy supporter, but if Fred Thompson gets in I'd switch".
Since I'm not trying to win a debate contest, I won't bother going through hundreds of posts to find those comments -- if you want to ignore it, that's fine with me because I'm not using the observation to try to persuade people, I'm just saying what I observed.
It also seems that some people who would support Rudy over Gingrich or Hunter will support Thompson over Rudy, if the FR member polls are to be believed:
Thompson/Rudy: 1361/393, 66%/19%
Hunter/Rudy: 1679/690, 63%/26%
Gingrich/Rudy: 1700/574, 64%/22%
Of ourse, there are apparently stragglers to the lastest opinion poll -- don't know if people are boycotting it, or if they are tired of polls, or what. But Thompson is winning the head-to-head matchup at this time.
Again though I don't expect people to change their votes based on opinion polls. Of course, I don't expect people to set their votes a year in advance based on electability.
In that regard, I think Rudy has shot himself in the foot. If Rudy was losing to the democrats, but was CLOSER than the other candidates, the Rudy supporters could argue that we needed to pick a candidate and build that candidate up to beat Hillary. I'd still oppose that a year out, but it would make sense.
But Rudy is easily defeating the democrats already, and we've got 20 months before the election. There's no need to "build him up", if we want Rudy he's already a shoo-in.
So the rest of us can push our own candidates without fear of Hillary: If our candidates can't catch on by next February, Rudy will always be there, the unacceptable but sure bet to beat the democrats.
FairOpinion wrote "1. Conservatives want to support a nominee who supported McCain against Bush?"
Ronald Reagan supported FDR and The New Deal, and Reagan was a one-time high-ranking member of an organized labor union. So what? People change.
And wrote: "2. The person, Baker, who is pushing Thompson's candidacy is a McCain supporter."
Wrong. Baker WAS a McCain supporter. He has not voiced support for McCain this time around. But if you have a link to prove me wrong, please post it. If Baker supports McCain, why would he be working so hard to get Fred Thompson into the race?
And wrote: "...they want to split the Republican and conservative vote, which would be advantageous to McCain getting the Republican nomination."
Hmmm. That makes no sense. Splitting the conservative vote would help Rudy more than any other candidate because he's the most liberal Republican candidate.
And wrote: "...Dem Strategist Bob Beckel is also trying to con Republicans to get Thompson in the race by making ludicrous statements, that the Dems are afraid of him."
That straw man has already be torched on another thread. Beckel is no strategist, unless you define managing Mondale's 1984 campaign for president to an 18-point loss and paying for a hooker by writing a personal check as "strategic." LOL!
And wrote: "How gullible are conservatives going to be, really?!"
Not guillible enough to vote for the liberal Rudy when there's a conservative Fred Thompson in the Race, that's for sure!
"STOP and THINK!!!!!"
Yes, stop and think! Who do you want to be naming the next two Supreme Court justices? The gun-grabbing, pro-abortion Rudy or Fred Thompson, who's supported gun rights and opposed abortion 100% of the time?
TheLucky0ne wrote: "He voted for McCain/Feingold..."
Are you a single-issue voter? That's myopic thinking. Most of us aren't. We look at ALL the votes a candidate or potential candidate has cast, and then we decide.
You're the one supporting a liberal for POTUS, NOT ME! LOL That is a betrayal of conservatism. So what are you, a sellout or a liberal? Its one or the other.
areafiftyone wrote: "I bet you Thompson is going to endorse McCain."
After watching Thompson on FNS this morning, I'd say you lost that bet...
I watched him too and he did not say he was running. He's not allowed to because he is under contract with NBC. Until he says he is running then there is a possibility he might endorse his buddy McCain who is good friends with him.
You're the one supporting a liberal for POTUS, NOT ME! LOL That is a betrayal of conservatism. So what are you, a sellout or a liberal? Its one or the other.
How can you say that, you don't know even who I am supporting!
areafiftyone wrote: "I bet you Thompson is going to endorse McCain."
***
Good the kiss of political death
So what year did you leave NYC?
She is supporting Romney.
I should have said STOP, READ, AND THINK:
"Baker said his wife, former Sen. Nancy Kassebaum Baker, R-Kan., already supports McCain for president and Baker said he too might back McCain if Thompson does not run.
Now go back and read my post 1. I am right and conservatives who want to support McCain are the ones who should support Fred Thompson.
=====
To make it easy, let me post it again:
Let's see:
1. Conservatives want to support a nominee who supported McCain against Bush?
2. The person, Baker, who is pushing Thompson's candidacy is a McCain supporter.
Anyone get a clue?
As I said on another thread, they want to split the Republican and conservative vote, which would be advantageous to McCain getting the Republican nomination.
A Ross Perot play inside the Republican primary.
Surely conservatives will be smarter than ending up splitting the party, to get McCain nominated, with President Hillary as a result.
Did you also hear that Dem Strategist Bob Beckel is also trying to con Republicans to get Thompson in the race by making ludicrous statements, that the Dems are afraid of him.
How gullible are conservatives going to be, really?!
STOP and THINK!!!!!
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.