Posted on 03/29/2007 6:58:58 AM PDT by meg88
Well, I understand, but I take note that every one of the only 4 candidates who can win in '08 is being ripped by the social right. And not necessarily for anything having any importance in a presidential race. Abortion will be decided by the USSC and hopefully be sent back to the states where it belongs. The same can be said for the 2d Amendment. The USSC will either decide that it is a collective right with no individual right to a gun, or an individual right that can be regulated by each state. There is no other option. As for "gay rights", I think they have all the same rights as the rest of us, and Rudy believes that states can prevent gay marriage. Like most Americans, he was against a constitutional amendment.
But much of the same misinformation seems to be hitting the other three contenders too, now even Fred Thompson is being targeted by the social right.
Too bad, because with Hillary's negatives, any of them could bring the conservative and moderate Dems and independents to the Republican Party in droves. They want a strong leader who puts the security of the Nation ahead of anything else. And the Democrats have no such leader. The Republicans do.
Thompson's are more consistent though.
"The media likes McCain, Giuliani and Romney because they will be the easiest to ambush next fall after the conventions.
Exactly.
Rudy....LIBERAL GLOBALIST
They are both politicians with similar "evolving" moments and there is no perfect conservative candidate. We haven't even gotten to one debate yet -- the jury is still out.
I will support the GOP nominee no matter what. The alternative is suicidal.
It just seems Romney's conversion is conveniently recent. Thompson at least voted pro-life his entire time in the Senate.
I'm not against Romney, I think he's OK, but he seems way too "slick" and that makes me a bit nervous.
Yes, even though he was characterized as pro-choice, he voted pro-life. And that is a good thing! It mirrors what Romney did as governor. You may already know this, but forgot, as it has been posted before. You can see the Romney pro-life actions on freeper unmarked package's home page (click abortion). You'll see that similar to Thompson, Romney took the pro-life position his entire time as Governor (I guess that's where Ann Coulter gets her "he tricked liberals" line).
They have some things in common.
A perfect example of the arrogant nuts who blog!
Dear redgirlinabluestate,
"He [Sen. Thompson] was pro-choice (or officially unannounced) throughout the 90's and then became pro-life."
Although it was widely reported in the mid- to late-1990s that Sen. Thompson was pro-choice, it appears that that may have been a misconception. According to a recent article posted here on Free Republic, during the 1994 campaign, the head of a major pro-life group in Tennessee was upset by reports that Sen. Thompson was pro-choice. The individual personally met with Sen. Thompson who assured him that nothing could be further from the truth.
Thus, there is significant question as to whether Sen. Thompson was ever really a pro-abort.
I think that Sen. Thompson, should he run, will have to make some effort to clarify what his position has been in the past, although it's clear that he believes presently that Roe should go.
In any event, even if Mr. Thompson "converted" on the issue, it was back in 1999 or 2000 - long before he became a candidate for president of the United States. In the case of Mr. Romney, his "conversions" on any number of issues seem a bit opportunistically timed.
Mr. Romney needs to fake his sincerity a bit better.
sitetest
How about if Newt throws his hat in, would you still go for Thompson?
Not sure. I haven't thought about it. My concern with Newt is that he's already been pretty much defeated by the Democrats before, so I'm not sure why anyone thinks he's going to be able to defeat them now in a presidential election. Thompson doesn't have the baggage that Newt has. I obviously would prefer a more conservative candidate than Thompson, but I'm told over and over again that we need a compromise candidate. I think Thompson is that candidate - not too conservative, not too liberal for the mainstream voter.
LBJ - South
Carter - South,br> Clinton - South
Bush - South
None of them have been that stellar in office.
How about these?
Washington - South
Jefferson - South
Monroe - South
Jackson - South
Tyler - South
Polk - South
A. Johnson - South
It all depends on how important the specific issue is. Some are far more important than others. To me, discrimination based on race is revolting.
Jeez, if I see another person propose putting Hunter on the ticket, I'm gonna SCREAM!!!
In that case I propose any ticket that doesn't have Rudy and does have Hunter.
Yep. And the MSM is especially waiting to Howard Dean Rudy.
The MSM has been trashing Thompson all week, and promoting Rudy. You would think the Rudybots here would get a clue.
Clearly it is early in the race. Duncan Hunter, like good cream, is rising to the top, and his coffers will steadily improve if loyal and good Conservative voters will ignore all the machinations of the liberal element in the GOP, and vote their principled convictions.
Yes. If Hunter can't get the nomination, maybe he can get VP or another important post. Either way, the country is better off for his running.
The MSM is scared of Thompson because they know he could unite the party. With Rudy, its easy... promote him now and Dean him after the conventions.
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.