Posted on 07/10/2007 9:06:01 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
I posted it as soon as the subject came up. It was in the form of a transript. I can't help it if you ignore the facts.
>>He says he thought Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, but also says he’s a pro-choice defender in a pro-life party.<<
I can’t find any evidence that Thompson himself said that, but anti-Fred people keep repeating it.
I am keeping an open mind about Thompson until he makes his positions clearer on many issues.
Deaver supporting Thompson is certainly no surprise. While I always give him points for being so faithful to Reagan for so many years, I would hardly call him a conservative stalwart. Would you?
Your guy keeps dropping in the polls the more you do this, or haven't you noticed? It takes no great effort to either be right of Bush or prove it.
Bush has appeased the left on everything from social spending to his PC run war. Thompson has both a history and a voting record of not appeasing anyone, especially the left and nobody in America is less concerned with political correctness than Thompson.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that every candidate except Rudy McRomney is right of Bush. But there are those who refuse to admit it. As I'm sure you know, Thompson has had several careers in the private sector. He has spent more time and made more money as a lawyer and actor than he ever made as a lobbyist. But you choose to mislead readers by pretending that his only career is lobby work. This is exactly the halfbaked half truths told by Hunter supporters that give Hunter a black eye. You couldn't do a better job of making Hunter look bad if you were Howard Dean.
But I’m not a liar!
Sure you are. You said ALL of Fred's advisors were Reagan folks. That's already been demonstrated to be untrue.
No, all of his primary advisors are, by design. His major financial supporters are Reagan folks too, in case you care to do some real homework.
This is yet another man (Vagarie or whatever) who believes his was is the only way and if you don’t do everything as he says it, then you’re not a conservative. We’ll I am a conservative and I believe that we have to move society to the right in increments - everyone here seems to think we can just win control of everything and in one fail swoop change everything back to the way we want it.
Sounds good in theory, but impossible to affect through legislation and even if you get the legislation, we have radical communities and cities (and states) who refuse to live by the Law of the Land (e.g. Sanctuary Cities). We need a leader who can affect change in the hearts and minds of the people - who will cause people to rise up as leaders in their own community to create the society we want.
While Fred Thompson may not be the perfect conservative, he is a good man who has the potential to be a “grandfather” figure to an entire generation of upcoming leaders. I was raised with Reagan in office and his demeanor and language effected me in subconscious ways that have instilled conservative values in me. I want my children to have a president who, while perhaps not the beacon of conservative thought, will lead the way be telling the people what he thinks is right and wrong and following through on that.
George Bush may not be perfect, but I have no problem having my children listening to what he says or admiring his life - studying his life. Same goes for Ronaldus Magnus and GHW. I believe the same would be said of Fred Thompson. He will be a strong voice for our general way of life, our belief in the basic tenets of humanity and the conservative construct. I will continue to learn more about him, but right now, for m money, he is the man I want in that office when GWB departs.
Maybe that’s image over substance, but for too long conservatives have let the “image” world of Hollywood craft popular culture while the conservative “image” have been left to the left to define. LEt’s let FDT be the image of conservative.
P.S. Wouldn’t mind seeing Rudy as VP and placed in charge of directing/overseeing the war on terror. Perhaps “Minister of Terrorist Justice”, not in charge of nominating Justices or Vetoing legislation.
My error as to the date, but it's still not private industry in my book. Lobbyists are all about influencing government to buy advantage in the marketplace, not focusing on building better mousetraps. They're one step above an NGO lawyer.
Each and everyone of us who has ever called or written any of our elected officials, or even contacted bureaucrats on an issue are acting as lobbyists, unpaid yes, but it is still lobbying.
That's getting way too fast and loose with a definition. "Lobbyist" denotes a person who represents an interest that has purchased sufficient influence to have access to a legislator in the lobby of legislative chambers, a level of access to which an average citizen does not even pretend. Hence the title, and the aptness of the mis-approbation.
You see, we don’t have TIME to fuss around trying to discover what all these other guys believe, and try to guess how they will govern, and keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best, like we’ve done for the last 6 years. Duncan Hunter has ALWAYS believed what he believes now, and I feel confident that what he believes today, he will act on when he is President. I think we can all sleep better the day he is inaugurated!!
You need to read more and show your ass less.
EternalVigilance Posted:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070623/NEWS0206/706230349/1016/NEWS02
:-)
Everything I stated was not only true, but confirmed by YOU.
Reagan would be ashamed to have such an idiot using his name...
I’m still here, not hiding, just fed up with your persistant ignorance.
And now I and several others have named them, connected them to Reagan, and proved that you have NO interest in truth at all.
I’m wasting no more time on a LIAR!
Thanks for the ping!
“That said, he ain’t Rudy Guiliani or John McInsane, and I’m willing to support him in the General. (I’ll be votin’ for Duncan Hunter in the Primary, most likely.)”
My thoughts exactly. I’m not even gonna read the other 900 posts now. ‘nough said.
You’re in way over your head, whoever you are.
Reagan Man is a longtime respected FReeper.
A transcript that made no such statement...
Where’s the transcript that makes the statement that Fred wants the states to continue killing innocent babies?
That he was. And there are few who have been closer to Nancy Reagan in the years since the Reagan administration.
He thinks it’s up to the States to decide. Do you think California or Massachusetts or Illinois are going to stop killing babies without the Fourteenth Amendment being enforced?
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.