Posted on 09/03/2007 3:24:18 PM PDT by asparagus
Good afternoon! Now now, I think both Fred and Mitt supporters are giving each other as good as they get -- it's that politics is a contact sport thing. I figure as long as Giuliani doesn't win and as long as we can come together at the end, all will be well. :)
I agree with you. The employment verification ID's should be for non-citizens only. I believe that is what all the candidates, who support employment verification, have said.
That's good news -- I am concerned about Giuliani's affinity for national ID cards and total citizen identification. But I'm glad Mitt, Fred and the other guys want to focus on non-citizen verification.
I didn't hear Fred say unequivocally that he rejected McCain's bill in its entirety - even the employer verification and border security measures? That doesn't make any sense. Parts of the bill are okay. Maybe he didn't read it all, like Mitt did? Just teasin' ya! ;-)
Hee! Good one -- you got me.
Anyway, I still want Fred to say he opposes the Z-visa though. I'll be watching and waiting, because that is a huge loophole and the McCain types do not admit that it is an amnesty provision at all. So we need everyone on the record stating that they specifically reject it (or it will come back to haunt us in the end).
I'm sure he'll be talking more about it -- given the importance of the immigration issue, he'll be addressing it again. His statements that have been reported on this thread are a good start, I think. Have a great day, and keep up the great work for your guy!
It’s why I regard Romney as the most dangerous of the Rudy McRomney troika. Taking McCain out of the equation, since nobody takes him seriously (have any of us even encountered a SINGLE McCain flunky on FR ?), at least Rudy is honest where he stands on liberal positions (even if he knows we disagree with him), so if Rudy were to veer to the right as President, it would be a pleasant surprise (and despite Rudy’s apostasy in ‘94, he’s at least been consistent with supporting and campaigning for Republicans, which is to his credit, and makes him less of a RINO than “It’s all about me Romney.”).
But Romney will talk the Conservative talk and walk the liberal walk (and he won’t be bothered to help the GOP, as he demonstrated in MA, just as with his hero, the undisputed King of the RINOs, slick Willy Weld) after he’s elected. It’s hard to trust somebody who uses more hair-care products than the Silky Pony. We don’t need slick rodent helpers as our President, unless we’re unequaled masochists.
Nonsense. What is your definition of "range" ? Appealing to liberals ? Selling his core principles like Romney to the highest bidder ? That's not range, that's a demonstration of a political whore.
'Range' meaning emotion and energy. Many people find his speaking style and some of the content generally boring.
Lecture yourself. Most, if not all, of your posts directed at me have been personal attacks.
Nonsense. And, 'whore' and 'bull$hit' are garbage language. 'Rodentry' is just plain strange.
I understate. And yet none of your comrades can refute a single point I have made about his shameful regime and what ruins he left behind. Nobody can.
You both overstate and claim invincibility. A emotional exaggeration can't be disproven or refuted, because it's simply your wild subjective opinion, cranked up to whatever level of urgency you feel like at the moment. If you want to start using facts in your arguments, maybe I'll start to listen. Here are a few facts regarding Romney's 'evil destructive tour of ruination' in MA, from Unmarked Package's page :
"Governor Mitt Romney inherited a $3 billion deficit in Massachusetts upon taking office in 2003 and the state was losing thousands of jobs every month. Over the course of his administration, without raising taxes or increasing debt, he balanced the state budget each year with a 85% majority Democrat Legislature and erased the deficit by cutting wasteful spending and government jobs and enacting economic reforms to spur growth. The state had a $1 billion budget surplus in 2005 and new jobs in MA were up 60,000 from the low point by the end of his term. The unemployment rate in Massachusetts was averaging more than a full percentage point lower when he left office in 2007.
In the four balanced budgets he signed into law, Governor Romney used the line-item veto or program reduction power to cut spending by nearly $1 Billion. Over the course of four budgets, Governor Romney made over 300 line-item reductions, 350 line-item eliminations and struck language 150 times.
Gov. Romney was instrumental in passing a bill abolishing a retroactive capital gains tax in the state that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay an additional $200 million in state taxes and fees. In addition, the new law authorized tax refunds totaling between $225 million and $275 million over four years to an estimated 157,000 taxpayers who had already paid portions of the retroactive tax.
The President has failed to do many things, most noticeably on illegals, and it will likely have ghastly long-term repercussions. The Congressional leadership has also been similarly lackluster, and that's not a view of a handful of people, but is the widespread opinion. If Dubya were seeking a third term, most of us here would be actively working to see him defeated in the primary. The goal of any party is to win as many seats with like-minded individuals as possible. But when party leaders start to help the opposite party with their goals, it's time for them to be removed.
The General Chairman of the Republican Party is Mel Martinez, a central figure in trying to get amnesty for 10-20 illegals (and subsequently 100+ million relatives). President Bush didn't veto a spending bill in his first 4 years (has he yet?). It's uncertain whether it's past time to abandon hope on the GOP, but it looks grim. The point is we aren't going to get back to where we want to be with a Ron Paul type 'extremist' or Bob Dole 'dud'. #1 priority in my mind is defeating the Democrat candidates, which are now openly talking as Socialists.
Whoever wins the nomination will deserve it, and I'll probably support them. If they go way too liberal, I'll decide it's time to fold the country and go 3rd party...that's what it all comes down to.
Au contraire. And looks like the saga continues below...
"'Range' meaning emotion and energy. Many people find his speaking style and some of the content generally boring."
I would say that would be "some" people, those that fear that he talks the talk and walks the walk. Of course, the con artist and political whore would be quite the charmer, and exciting to boot.
"Nonsense."
Your hypocrisy grows with each line.
"And, 'whore' and 'bull$hit' are garbage language."
My, you are sensitive one. Again, if calling them like you see 'em offends your delicate sensibilities, maybe this website and politics in general should be something you steer clear of.
"'Rodentry' is just plain strange."
I'll break it down for you, since you have trouble with it. DemocRATs. Rats are rodents. Members of the rodent party and their comrades are rodentry. And yes, rodentry is plain strange. It's why most of us around here work hard to keep the vermin from spreading, especially to our own party, as Precious Willard and the RINO brigades represents.
"You both overstate and claim invincibility."
Nonsense (to quote you).
"A emotional exaggeration can't be disproven or refuted, because it's simply your wild subjective opinion, cranked up to whatever level of urgency you feel like at the moment."
Nonsense, again. When I discuss specific points regarding the Romney record of shame and the damage he inflicted, NOBODY can refute the facts of the matter. What I see are regurgitated talking points and alleged position posturings (du jour, of course, since what he stands for today isn't what he stood for yesterday, and won't be what he stands for tomorrow). I have asked you and your fellow Romneybots to refute the specific factual demographics of what he left behind, and not a one can. All it is met with is sarcasm and whining about how he couldn't perform miracles, wasn't perfect, yada yada yada, or is simply ignored altogether, because it is all so damning, that they just simply want to preserve even a shred of credibility (although most of that went out the window the first time the bots opened their mouth to say he "was/is a Conservative"). Sorry, but you guys lost the argument a long time ago. Going on hysterical benders lecturing us for pointing out this guy is a cheap political whore and destructive tsunami demonstrates your own chronic lack of credibility.
"If you want to start using facts in your arguments, maybe I'll start to listen."
No you don't. You've already been told and you don't want to listen. You all are exactly the same. Yet, remarkably, you are so quick to point out Fred's "flaws" (which are usually debunked points and are an anthill to the mountain of flaws your candidate has).
"Here are a few facts regarding Romney's 'evil destructive tour of ruination' in MA, from Unmarked Package's"
I've read those same talking points endlessly, and I've responded to them endlessly.
""Governor Mitt Romney... he balanced the state budget each year with a 85% majority Democrat Legislature"
A legislature that grew more rodent on his watch, with his help. Oh, and just so you know, Howard Dean AND Michael Dukakis both balanced their state budgets. I guess I will expect now to see how they are fully qualified to receive the Republican nomination for President. Point debunked.
"The General Chairman of the Republican Party is Mel Martinez, a central figure in trying to get amnesty for 10-20 illegals (and subsequently 100+ million relatives). President Bush didn't veto a spending bill in his first 4 years (has he yet?). It's uncertain whether it's past time to abandon hope on the GOP, but it looks grim. The point is we aren't going to get back to where we want to be with a Ron Paul type 'extremist' or Bob Dole 'dud'. #1 priority in my mind is defeating the Democrat candidates, which are now openly talking as Socialists."
OK. And that's why there's only one acceptable candidate with a proven record, one of standing up to the bad guys and not running away and telling everybody it's every man for himself... and that's Fred Thompson.
"Whoever wins the nomination will deserve it, and I'll probably support them. If they go way too liberal, I'll decide it's time to fold the country and go 3rd party...that's what it all comes down to."
Exactly what will happen with a decent bulk of the GOP base with the unprincipled cut and run Romney and the liberal Giuliani. We can't afford to take any risks with allowing them to be nominated.
Maybe you should have read the FR Posting Guidelines before you started posting.
I'm not offended by any language - it just tells me something about the person using it...garbage language is used for extra impact, to strengthen weak arguments.
I'll break it down for you, since you have trouble with it. DemocRATs. Rats are rodents. Members of the rodent party and their comrades are rodentry. And yes, rodentry is plain strange. It's why most of us around here work hard to keep the vermin from spreading, especially to our own party, as Precious Willard and the RINO brigades represents.
Okay, now it makes sense. Perhaps a bit obscure or allegorical. If it makes you happy, keep doing it. IMO it's strange.
A legislature that grew more rodent on his watch, with his help. Oh, and just so you know, Howard Dean AND Michael Dukakis both balanced their state budgets. I guess I will expect now to see how they are fully qualified to receive the Republican nomination for President. Point debunked.
Your logic is fallacious. Dean and Dukakis did many things that good Republican nominees do, like kiss their wives and brush their teeth. That doesn't mean evidence of fiscal conservatism should to be disregarded. Romney took a deficit and turned it into a surplus. He did the same with the Olympics. He did the same in the business world.
I have asked you and your fellow Romneybots to refute the specific factual demographics of what he left behind, and not a one can.
Please list the actual statistical demographics you're talking about - numbers - and I'll consider them. MA has been deep blue for ages...to fault Romney for losing political ground is suspect. In MA, losing seats could be a sign of conservative governance:
Say a moderate liberal somehow won the governorship of Texas by impressing and promising moderation on social issues and fiscal conservatism, and then when elected started turning more liberal on social issues (in the same way that Romney turned more conservative on social issues). What do you expect the demographic results would be in Texas? Independents and moderates, who were expecting a moderate governance, would be upset and start voting in conservatives in as counterbalance.
OK. And that's why there's only one acceptable candidate with a proven record, one of standing up to the bad guys and not running away and telling everybody it's every man for himself... and that's Fred Thompson.
If I'm going 'true-believer' style in voting (not who can most likely prevent the Democrat candidate from winning), I'm not voting for Thompson, I'm voting for Hunter or Tancredo - they are the real tough conservatives. Thompson's got some 'good-ole boy' image (my opinion), membership in CFR, involvement in campaign finance, and isn't as socially conservative on abortion as Hunter, Paul, Brownback, Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. We really need Paul-style federalism - cuts...Thompson sounds like status quo (my opinion - I await his platform). And in military matters I believe Hunter and McCain have more experience on Congressional committees related to the military.
Thompson will be a good nominee, I'm just saying if I'm not voting pragmatic, I'm voting as a 'true-believer', i.e. for Hunter.
Please don't lecture me when you've violated these rules yourself, thanks.
"I'm not offended by any language - it just tells me something about the person using it...garbage language is used for extra impact, to strengthen weak arguments."
Shall I repost my paragraph to you again ? I call a spade a spade. I don't much cotton to people who piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
"Okay, now it makes sense. Perhaps a bit obscure or allegorical. If it makes you happy, keep doing it. IMO it's strange."
You're the first person who claims Republican allegiance (I presume), who has ever found cause to criticize or call 'strange' the apt phrase of "rodentry." I do take credit for likely originating the phrase on this website. Nothing like introducing a new phrase to our rich lexicon of language. :-)
"Your logic is fallacious. Dean and Dukakis did many things that good Republican nominees do, like kiss their wives and brush their teeth. That doesn't mean evidence of fiscal conservatism should to be disregarded."
Nonsense. It's been a key argument of the Romneyites, "He balanced the budget." Well, "good liberals" like Mad Howie and Dorkakis did the same. So that means they're qualified to be a Republican Presidential nominee. In fact, it's Constitutionally required a MA Governor submit a balanced budget, so there's no "fiscal Conservatism" on the part of Romney, it's required by law. BTW, under VT law, Dean was NOT required to do so, but yet he did, so that makes him more a fiscal Conservative by choice than Romney. Quite telling, indeed.
"Romney took a deficit and turned it into a surplus. He did the same with the Olympics. He did the same in the business world."
He turned the Republican deficit and made it an even wider one. Remember, kids, 2006 was the first year in the history of the Commonwealth since 1855-56 when the GOP first started running candidates that not a single Republican won federal or statewide office in MA. Promises broken, cutting and running from his responsibilities, incredible selfishness and ego. He learned well from his hero Weld. That is the Romney legacy, anything else in the private sector in the distant past is irrelevent.
"Please list the actual statistical demographics you're talking about - numbers - and I'll consider them."
They're all over this thread and others. You look them up. I'm tired of reposting them and having them ignored.
"MA has been deep blue for ages..."
I'll ignore the newsspeak media colors for a moment and tell you once again that MA was ALWAYS a competitive state for the GOP until the 1990s. It took incompetent RINO leadership at the Governorship to put it permanently out of reach of the Republican party. Look at the figures, they're in my posts all over this thread.
"to fault Romney for losing political ground is suspect. In MA, losing seats could be a sign of conservative governance:"
Nope, in EVERY instance, the GOP retreating from Conservatism has caused drastic damage in every state in which it has been practiced. MA is the worst-case scenario, the epitome of how liberal RINOism has eviscerated the party to proportions well out-of-whack with the voting population. It was the unapologetic Reagan that had no problems carrying a state that some political pundits had written off for dead after Nixon's drubbing in 1972 (which had more to do with a personal dislike of the candidate than necessarily a hearty embrace of McGovern).
"Say a moderate liberal somehow won the governorship of Texas by impressing and promising moderation on social issues and fiscal conservatism, and then when elected started turning more liberal on social issues (in the same way that Romney turned more conservative on social issues). What do you expect the demographic results would be in Texas? Independents and moderates, who were expecting a moderate governance, would be upset and start voting in conservatives in as counterbalance."
If said moderate/liberal were a Republican, as in almost every instance (and not just in Texas), those unpopular and damaging policies then proceed to get associated with the entire party (regardless if the bulk of the party does not embrace them). The Democrats can then run against the Governor and the GOP (even if, mind you, they tend to support those policies) and will usually (better than 90% of the time) take said office and increase said legislative and/or federal offices at the midterm and general elections.
I'll give you a specific example of that in my state of TN. We had a GOP Governor who marketed himself as a Conservative, but shortly into his 2nd term, he jumped the proverbial shark and turned into a RINO, militantly promoting a Constitutionally-illegal state income tax. Democrats were excited, the Republicans (aside from some fellow RINOs) were horrified. He was pulling this stunt at the worst possible time, when the 2000 elections were coming. His unpopularity reached astronomical proportions and was told by the Bush campaign and other Republicans in no uncertain terms that he was not to be seen at any public campaign events. It was by sheer miracle that his unpopularity (a la Taft in Ohio) did not push TN into the Democrat column (and if you remember, if Gore had carried TN, he would've carried the election, FL or not).
Next came his revenge. Since the early 1970s, the Democrat legislature in my state has employed ruthless gerrymandering to squash the emerging Republican majority (this stems from an incident in early 1969 when we were able to elect a Republican House Speaker, the first Southern state since the 19th century to do so -- and it hasn't happened here since), and the 2002 redistricting was on the table. Since the mid '90s, the Republicans received a clear majority of the vote in legislative elections, but only received a minority of seats. The Governor, in order to punish the GOP, and specifically members that helped to kill his illegal scheme, targeted a dozen Republicans for defeat in a plan so audacious that even the Democrats (at least publicly) thought was too ruthless, as its goal was to reduce GOP representation from about 43% down to about 33-35% (remember, we were getting close to 55% of the overall vote). The Republicans cried bloody murder, and the Dems (trying to appear "moderate") refused to touch the redistricting scheme (mind you, the Governor was supposed to be pushing a plan that increased GOP numbers !), and what we ended up with was the 1994 plan, slightly modified, eliminated 1 GOP seat, along with gerrymandering the federal lines once again and ensuring the open seat of Van Hilleary (who was the GOP candidate for Governor) would go to a Dem state Senator (which it did, tilting the delegation in DC majority Dem, 5-4, despite the fact that a clear majority overall favored Republicans).
That wasn't the end of the festivities. Bound and determined to get revenge in another way, the RINO Governor recruited a has-been rich RINO legislator who was so incompetent that he managed to lose reelection in a district designed to elect him back in the '80s. The man's goal was a simple one, drain Van Hilleary's finances so that he would be without resources going into the general election. It was a rousing success. With no money, Hilleary faced my billionaire ex-Mayor, Bredesen, and Bredesen spent liberally (and violated campaign finance laws in the process, which the state AG, a rodent hack, refused to endorse -- the same hack who was prepared to rule that the illegal income tax, specifically spelled out in the state Constitution is forbidden, was "perfectly legal"). Bredesen spent the bulk of his money in ancestrally Republican East TN where he misrepresented his record as Mayor and fooled just enough folks to eke out one of the narrowest victories in TN history for the Gov's office. We've been stuck with him and his corrupt regime ever since -- all thanks to that destructive RINO Governor.
You'll see why I have zero sympathy for RINO Governors who deliberately or through apathy, inflict damage upon his or her party, and empower the Democrats through said actions. I played the good little Republican soldier myself in the late '80s through the mid to late '90s believing the falsehood that any Republican was better than any Democrat. I soon realized that not all Republicans were in the Reagan mode, and more than a number were simply there to rip apart Conservative ideas and values. I learned that having trojan horse politicians in the GOP was worse than any openly-Democrat Governor, since, as I wrote above, the entire party gets painted with the broad brushstrokes of the failures of the incumbent, and pays a heavy price for it. We paid it in TN, and MA has paid the worst price of all. Understand this is no "hysterical emotionalism", but is all grounded in the reality of witnessing in horror what these elected leaders have done to US -- not to the competition -- but to our own party. You do far more damage to a cause by destroying it from within than from without. This is why the likes of Romney, Weld, Christie Whitman, Donnie DiFrancesco, Pete Wilson, George Ryan, Don Sundquist, George Pataki, Schwarzeneggar, Bill Owens, Bill Janklow, Bill Graves, Bill Milliken, Bob Taft, George Voinovich, Linwood Holton, and a host of others over the past 3 decades have been some of the worst things that could ever happen to our party, and left wreckage behind that took years to repair, and in some cases, left irrepairable damage.
"If I'm going 'true-believer' style in voting (not who can most likely prevent the Democrat candidate from winning), I'm not voting for Thompson, I'm voting for Hunter or Tancredo - they are the real tough conservatives."
Hunter's a good man, but he's too obscure and House candidates don't win elections (not since James Garfield in 1880, and the OH state legislature gave him a bump-up to Senator-elect when he was sworn-in as a courtesy). Tancredo is, despite being dead right on illegals, too divisive to win, makes gaffes (going to Southern FL to blast illegals in a heavily Hispanic Republican area was simply stupid -- he should've gone to the Los Angeles area instead where there's far worse problems, and those areas are hyper-rodent), and he basically is too much a johnny-one-note. I'd rather see him run for the open Senate seat instead. We need to find niches for our folks. Hunter should ultimately end up as Defense Sec under Fred.
"Thompson's got some 'good-ole boy' image (my opinion),"
I think that's a ridiculous argument to vote against someone, seriously. We need to get past this regional bigotry (especially of the kind that is socially acceptable to discriminate against Southern Republicans). I don't blast Romney for being a northeasterner or being from Massachusetts, I blast him for being a destructive RINO. You can come from anywhere and be that.
"membership in CFR,"
That's ooga-booga stuff, conspiracy-theory nonsense. Nobody on FR has been able to articulate what that even means beyond going on a rant against "globalists." I don't consider that to be a negative, but just an ignorant and paranoic slur from people that don't grasp what role we play in the world today. It's way too "paleo" for me.
"involvement in campaign finance,"
I will state that I did not support his role in the matter, but I did understand why he championed it. He believed there was too many corrupting influences in political campaigns (no rational person can claim otherwise) and thought placing sensible limits was the right way to go to make things fairer. He admitted that it hasn't worked out as he hoped. I give him credit for at least trying to do something about cutting corruption. He's made a career out of doing just that, and helped bring down one of the most corrupt statewide officials in the past 50 years in my state, Gov. Ray Blanton, who ultimately went to prison. His role in that case eventually led to a surprise acting career (when the producers of the film "Marie" had him play himself).
"and isn't as socially conservative on abortion as Hunter, Paul, Brownback, Romney, McCain, or Huckabee."
He has never voted for a single pro-abort bill in his political career, period. This has been one of the most debunked points posted on FR in the past year.
"We really need Paul-style federalism - cuts...Thompson sounds like status quo (my opinion - I await his platform)."
Paul is a nut, and that's all I'm going to say about him. I know where he'd do his cutting first, and it won't be social programs.
"And in military matters I believe Hunter and McCain have more experience on Congressional committees related to the military."
I don't trust McCain, either. He's also a media whore. But with respect to Hunter, it's why someone of his expertise should see him as Defense Secretary in Fred's administration. I do hope Fred considers him for that slot.
"Thompson will be a good nominee, I'm just saying if I'm not voting pragmatic, I'm voting as a 'true-believer', i.e. for Hunter."
I don't think each has to be mutually exclusive here. I'd rather you vote for Hunter than Romney in the primary, and I don't criticize folks for supporting the distinguished gentleman from California. Thompson is a Conservative candidate, and from the pragmatic view, the single most electable in the field. Each of the rest of the candidates have far too many flaws, and Fred has the fewest (most of which tend to be entirely superficial ones, since the bulk of his stances and character are unimpeachable).
Excuse me? Quote me where I have violated those rules. I'll quote you in the act of low-brow potty 'humor': post #166 "If it’s Rudy McRomney, flush it down."
Nonsense. It's been a key argument of the Romneyites, "He balanced the budget." Well, "good liberals" like Mad Howie and Dorkakis did the same. So that means they're qualified to be a Republican Presidential nominee. In fact, it's Constitutionally required a MA Governor submit a balanced budget, so there's no "fiscal Conservatism" on the part of Romney, it's required by law. BTW, under VT law, Dean was NOT required to do so, but yet he did, so that makes him more a fiscal Conservative by choice than Romney. Quite telling, indeed.
Saying Romney supporters call it a 'key argument' and implying it is the only qualification for the Republican nomination is a straw man. It's one of many positive reasons to support Romney. If he hadn't balanced the budget, you'd be criticizing him for it right now.
They're all over this thread and others. You look them up. I'm tired of reposting them and having them ignored.
I'm not questioning the fact that under Romney's watch the state lost political ground, I question the significance and the reasons for this. More detailed statistics than what you provided might reveal a more complex truth. As of now your argument is a simple 'existence-effect' - Romney was governor, and then Republicans lost political ground. What were the causes and reasons? I never buy simplistic assertions.
Massachussetts voters' gave native John Kerry 61.9% of the presidential vote in 2004, but I supposed that has nothing to do with state politics?
I'll ignore the newsspeak media colors for a moment and tell you once again that MA was ALWAYS a competitive state for the GOP until the 1990s. It took incompetent RINO leadership at the Governorship to put it permanently out of reach of the Republican party.
So you admit the decline started before Romney.
As I understand it, Romney was encouraged to run for MA governor because the likely Republican candidate, Jane Swift, was an unviable candidate. Sounds like Republicans could have got it even worse if Swift had run, probably losing the governorship.
We paid it in TN, and MA has paid the worst price of all. Understand this is no "hysterical emotionalism", but is all grounded in the reality of witnessing in horror what these elected leaders have done to US -- not to the competition -- but to our own party. You do far more damage to a cause by destroying it from within than from without. This is why the likes of Romney, Weld, Christie Whitman, Donnie DiFrancesco, Pete Wilson, George Ryan, Don Sundquist, George Pataki, Schwarzeneggar, Bill Owens, Bill Janklow, Bill Graves, Bill Milliken, Bob Taft, George Voinovich, Linwood Holton, and a host of others over the past 3 decades have been some of the worst things that could ever happen to our party, and left wreckage behind that took years to repair, and in some cases, left irrepairable damage.
I appreciate your anecdote about why you no longer support RINOs. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. The party chooses its leaders who then effect the party. Not all blame falls on the leaders. Weeding out the RINOs should happen in the primaries (and through primary challenges to RINO incumbants). My view is that one should always vote against the lesser of two evils in general elections (typically against the Democrat). So, if a RINO ends up the nominee, it means the party's conservative component wasn't strong enough to prevent it...and they should focus on building up their strength rather than blame the majority who made the RINO the candidate.
Hunter's a good man, but he's too obscure and House candidates don't win elections (not since James Garfield in 1880, and the OH state legislature gave him a bump-up to Senator-elect when he was sworn-in as a courtesy).
I agree about Tancredo and Hunter, but what about ex-Senators' drought of success when it comes to Presidential campaigns? (i.e. Thompson)
I think that's a ridiculous argument to vote against someone, seriously. We need to get past this regional bigotry (especially of the kind that is socially acceptable to discriminate against Southern Republicans). I don't blast Romney for being a northeasterner or being from Massachusetts, I blast him for being a destructive RINO. You can come from anywhere and be that.
'Good ole boy' may be the wrong term. I meant Washington insider, Beltway establishment, etc. I don't care where anybody is from. Can we expect Thompson to fight for change and reform to the same degree that he did during his time as senator? That's one of my biggest hesitations.
That's ooga-booga stuff, conspiracy-theory nonsense. Nobody on FR has been able to articulate what that even means beyond going on a rant against "globalists." I don't consider that to be a negative, but just an ignorant and paranoic slur from people that don't grasp what role we play in the world today. It's way too "paleo" for me.
Yes it is an unfair 'guilt by association', but it festers because of Thompson's previously mentioned 'Washington insider' image. I don't hold his CFR membership against him, but I would like him to more strongly denounce all of this NAU and NWO stuff. And, yes, there is conspiracy, but most of it is now right out in the open, because the people are too dumb to realize their country is being sold down the river.
-David Rockefeller in his 2002 book entitled Memoirs
He has never voted for a single pro-abort bill in his political career, period. This has been one of the most debunked points posted on FR in the past year.
A federalist position is by default less socially conservative than a two-step position. In those minds of those who believe abortion is murder, Thompson is saying its okay for states to choose whether or not to permit murder. This position is to the left of even President Bush.
I don't think each has to be mutually exclusive here. I'd rather you vote for Hunter than Romney in the primary, and I don't criticize folks for supporting the distinguished gentleman from California. Thompson is a Conservative candidate, and from the pragmatic view, the single most electable in the field. Each of the rest of the candidates have far too many flaws, and Fred has the fewest (most of which tend to be entirely superficial ones, since the bulk of his stances and character are unimpeachable).
I need to see more of Thompson to judge his electability. I've seen Romney on and off in interviews for years and he's proved to me he's extremely intelligent, quick wit, and a great communicator. Like any voter, I reserve the right to change my mind up to the moment I pull the lever. I just give my impression of the current situation.
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.