Posted on 08/18/2007 9:21:51 PM PDT by SmithL
Nah. A flawed man is sufficient.
But, he needs to have a basic understanding of fundamental American principles, and have demonstrated the courage to fight for them.
The right to life, liberty, and private property are non-negotiable to me. If that were so with more people, maybe America’s slide into socialism could be stopped.
Romney / Thompson, Thompson / Romney in either order would be a pretty good, balanced ticket.
The main risk to either scenario of course is Rudy.
So, do you expect me to drop my belief and faith in my pick, and follow yours?
I believe in Fred, I think he has all the makings to become a great leader. I sincerely do.
I think Hunter and Tancredo are great conservatives, but lack the ability to become great leaders. That’s only my opinion...but I’m keepin’ it. :)
I think rudy and mitt are two faced liars who would sell their Mothers and their Grand Mothers to get what they want. One’s a scumball opportunist, with an inherited mental defect, and the other is a rich, spolied baby posing as a snakeoil salesman. Of course that’s how I see them, your mileage may vary. LOL
I respect others’ right to choose a different, or the same, candidate and, I haven’t been trying to change anyone’s mind. I enjoy discussing the merits, and the lack of them, on every candidate...but I disdain all the FReeper against FReeper name calling, flames, and yes, even the lies that have been posted.
For me, it’s not that I want to teach anyone a lesson. I want to vote for the candidate that I have chosen, and not live to regret it. I regret so many from the past 35 years, and I don’t like that feeling.
peace.
The difference, of course, is that Thompson was a politician. He was in Washington. He devoted a good part of his life to the political process.
But never wanted to assume full responsibility. Until now, when he has an enormous grassroots effort to give it to him. Very little work involved, particularly relative to the other candidates. Just show up some time around September.
Nope. Thompson is going to have to prove himself, which I don’t think he has until this point.
I know I didn't write this, and I really doubt it can be construed from my post, so let's call it willful misinterpretation on your part, OK? So,if you're going to be making prescriptions and offering remedies, well, go ahead and connect the dots, doc.
Fred Thompson is not "presidential."
Hillary Clinton is a "shoe-in."
Now, how did I imply that the former is a consequence of the latter?
PS. People who turn what I said into what you said about what I said make great leftists. Conservatives don't engage in such tactics.
My worry with Fred Thompson is that his cancer is going to come out of remission. It’s bound to happen.
There was a study published about his form of cancer not long ago. 86% of the people at Thompson’s point were either sick or dead.
If his cancer recurs, there’s no going back once he is the nominee. And we may very well be in a position where a Vice President would need to step up.
“These types of articles serve no purpose other than to create animosity among FReepers.”
“Looking back over this thread, I was, sadly, 100% correct.”
Yes, you were!
Not that we don’t have ‘fraggin’ freepers’ eager to do the bashing of Republican candidates themselves at the drop of a hat.
In this thread we see whining about FredT’s lack of hair and , even dumber, MittR’s too perfect hair. All while people miss the big picture: Reagan *was* concerned about image, but what made Reagan great was the content of his message and not its package. A clear, consistent, articulate conservative is what is needed. Let’s not worry about hair, but about what these candidates are saying.
Oh, and if you are bashing a Presidential contender because they are not 100% perfect according to your own particular specific narrow perspective, consider that a Presidential candidate has to win a majority of 100 million votes.
NOBODY who is electable enough to get 51 million votes will be ‘perfect’ to those of very strong views.
This is why I say: Don’t tell me what you are against, tell me what you are FOR.
Michael Reagan supports Romney. Laura Ingraham was caught on camera *gasp* hugging Ann Romney. They are TWO relatively famous Reagan concervatives. Mitt is NO Hillary, and I find it unbelievable and ridiculous that you'd make such a juxtaposition.
As someone who's been politically involved for thirty years, your question is not only insulting but idiotic. It would appear, like many pro-lifers, you need to learn more about politics before learnin' other's about the subject.
Well, why don't you practice what you preach and stop putting words in my mouth? I have never, ever said that Rudy or Mitt are the only ones who can beat Hillary, and in fact I have posted hundreds of times saying that Rudy will never beat her. I am only saying that staying home will result in Hillary appointing two supremes.
BTW, are you just against Southerners?
Where the heck are you getting that crap? I've never said anything bad about Southerners.
IIRC I think it was an interview with Sean Hannity, Fred said there is only one Reagan. To me that means Fred does not claim to be another Reagan. He is his own man and will campaign best in a way that he is comfortable with.
Reagan did his wonderful speeches by constant practice, going around the country speaking to GE audiences with the same message over and over. Candidates today will not have that intense of a way to train to do this.
Reporters don’t do Fred any favors by articles like these because it is usually followed by, Fred claims to be another Reagan which he does not.
Some of the other candidates may claim to be like Reagan but Fred has not.
That said, personally I see resemblances to Reagan. Reagan is a good president to emulate, he got things done and encouraged people with his words. I think Fred does too IMHO. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
“This is a guy who understands federalism, and a guy who sees government service as a way to deal with problems he wants to solve, rather than as a career platform. Those are things we haven’t seen in many candidates and I certainly ddon’t see it in any of the Rudy McRomney frontrunners.”
Whoa, your ‘career platform’ comment doesnt fit. Mitt has spent more time in the private sector, very successfully, than any of the other candidates. Why do you group him with lifetime-in-Govt-service guys like McCain and Rudy? Mitt and FredT are both refreshing in that they have had a life outside the beltway.
Whether you agree or not with their views, at least give credit to all the candidates that they are running on what they believe is the best for American people. last I checked, the Presidency wasnt a very cushy job.
Don’t you know that the “Big C” discussion is off limits at this place?
I think we’re totally on the same page.
It’s pretty sad when you need to resort to using a would be candidate’s medical condition to scare folks into supporting someone else.
Is your candidate that bad you need to do this?
If the doctor’s say he’s fit to run, then that’s good enough for me. It should be for you too.
How ironic that the new alleged “Great Communicator,” ex-abortion lobbyist FRed Thompson, worked for ten years to pass legislation to deny other people the right to communicate.
Every time John McCain appears on TV, someone on Free Republic says "he looks awful" or "I wonder if his cancer is coming back". John McCain happened to have a very visible cancer, and the treatment caused side effects that linger to this day in the swelling of his face. Should we not bring that up?
Rudy had prostate cancer that was supposedly cured, if he showed up to the Iowa State Fair, and had obviously lost weight, looked drawn out, and just looked older than the last time we saw him, wouldn't you think questioning of his health would be appropriate? If it would be ok for us to question McCain or Guiliani, why can't we question Fred?
I honestly think that if Fred was sick, he would not throw his hat in the ring, I do believe his doctors, but I also wonder why we should not be questioning him in light of a diagnosis that has almost a certain (according to his doctors) chance of recurrence. Why is it off limits?
We know without a doubt that if he becomes the nominee, that 60 minutes, 20/20 and all those types of shows will do exposes on his type of cancer, and point out the statistics that state that his type of cancer does reappear. It may be treatable, but it will come back.
You have the stink of fear on you.
Dragging WAnker filth into this forum will NOT help your Willard’s credibility problems.
Real Reagan conservatives on Romney's staff would be telling him to apologize for his lies about Reagan's abortion record. So is Willard refusing to apologize, or are there no actual Reagan conservatives on his staff?
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.