Posted on 07/26/2007 7:21:34 AM PDT by hardback
I was going to add “in the last 100 yr or so” but went with the much shorter “tend”.
I think you might well consider giving up drinking altogether. Well, water might be OK.
Spencer sees himself as an Arab and thus defends Arab Muslims from profiling or responsibility for fundraising for Hezbollah.
Clinton lover...
Fred Thompson believes strongly in term limits, maybe he will push to enforce term limits.
I often wonder how the so-called Duncan Hunter supporters have any time left to actually support their candidate, seeing as how they spend more time on the Fred threads trying to tear Thompson down.
Perhaps that’s why Hunter has been stuck at under 2% forever...
Yawn.
“Never has the Senate convicted on an article worded such as this. Several crimes or categories of crimes (the exact number cannot be determined from reading the article) are charged in this one article. The perjurious statements are not described, nor are their dates. In large part, this article charges that the President committed perjury because he denied prior perjury. At the outset, it is clear that a count such as this in an indictment would not survive court challenge...” - Fred Thompson on the Perjury article of impeachment against Bill Clinton
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
WannabeTurk wrote: “Just as I thought, y’all are all hat, no cattle.”
That’s what Molly Ivans said about George W. Bush.
Just as I thought. You’re a liberal-quoting liberal. LOL!
WannabeTurk wrote: “Just as I thought, y’all are all hat, no cattle.”
That’s what Molly Ivans said about George W. Bush.
Just as I thought. You’re a liberal-quoting liberal. LOL!
You read Molly Ivans? Geesh...
Romney is running at least as conservative as Fred is...
[Thompson's] drawl and conservative voting record are likely to play well in South Carolina.
RINO Richard Parsons, CEO of Time-Warner, papers over liberal aspects of Thompson's record to declare Thompson conservative to anyone who will listen. Parsons ignores Abraham, who seems to serve as an OBL inoculation allowing fashion conscious RINOs to keep plenty of psychological distance between themselves and the supposed unchecked anger of wall building racist right wing rabble.
Of course. Most of those figures reflect my opinion only. As I said, any person can do that calculation for themselves, and I think any rational assessment has Fred on top.
so you just end up with a convoluted formula to validate your bias.
I may get a result you do not agree with, but the formula is rather basic. It isn't convolunted, just my cockamammie opinion ratings are. ;^)
Duncan has been in office since 1980. Guliani has never held elected Federal office.
True, but Rudy's small fiefdom has more people than several states, and he governed during an incredible crisis that no others have faced. That was my rationale. Hunter has been in office for a long time, but had not made the national stage until this run.
=> EXPERIENCE: Hunter 85, McCain 85, Romney 85 (gubernatorial exp. trumps Senate time) Guliani 75, Fred 75
And let's use your numbers to make a new tally, shall we?
==> TELEGENIC PRESENCE: Romney has aced every debate, debates where Guliani and McCain did poorly, and should definitely be well above Guliani and McCain... Romney 90, Fred 85, Hunter 75, McCain 70, Guliani 75”
I forgot about those debates. He did do very well, but debates aren't the entire body of telegenic presence. I should bump him up a few points, though.
“CONSERVATIVE RATINGS: Hunter 96, Fred 92, Romney 73, McCain 67, Guiliani 58” ??? Romney is running at least as conservative as Fred is, and governed pretty conservatively for a blue-state governor. His rating should be higher. Guliani should be lower.
Okay, let's use: “CONSERVATIVE RATINGS: Hunter 96, Fred 84, Romney 90, McCain 67, Guiliani 58”, and I think that's highly underestimating Fred.
ELECTABILITY: Polls show Guliani no longer much ahead of other GOP candidates like Romney. McCain is completely unelectable due to Iraq/immigration double hex. Guliani 85, Fred 85, Romney 75, Hunter 70, McCain 50.
M'kay
“MONEY (est): Guiliani 20, McCain 20, Hunter 15, Romney 10, Fred 5” Doh! you have it bakwards! Romney is on top on fund-raising - number one with over $30 million raised - and McCain is *broke*!! And Fred is doing amazing pre-announcement fundraising ...MONEY: Guiliani 20, Romney 20, Fred 15, Hunter 10, McCain 5
Okay
So you got all your numbers wrong - result- Garbage in, garbage out ... should look more like: 375 Romney 337 Hunter 335 Fred 313 McCain 282 Guliani
No, using your very own numbers, we now get:
372 Fred
360 Mitt
337 Hunter
310 Rudy
273 McCain
Again, with a fair and rational assessment Fred is still on top... and that's with severely overestimating Mitt's electability ("President Mitt?? and a Mormon?? No, but thanks" says the mushy middle), and underestimating Fred's conservative ratings (maybe you chose diffferent groups' ratings than I did)
“372 Fred
360 Mitt
337 Hunter ...”
okay, I can go with these but I still the exercise as numerizing subjective viewpoint. Here’s how we should evaluate a future president:
1) Character
2) Competence
3) Vision & convictions/platform
I won’t dare put numbers on these categories, but food for thought.
As for “underestimating Fred’s conservative ratings”, I think if anything he’s been overestimated in his conservativeness by freepers. His votes were not much different from McCain, and he wasn’t an out-in-front conservative on too many issues during his senate career.
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.