This skewering is a big issue. It has no real positive effect. It divides conservatives, at a time we need a united front, and just makes it easy to for lefties to pick apart us and our candidates. Many of our candidates are good men with strong records, agree with them or not, unlike, say, Kerry. I'm not so naive to think that people won't feel strongly about their favorites or that arguments won't break out, but I think it's far too soon to think we have but the one electable choice without hearing from others. Fred is a strong frontrunner with a real chance, and, at least if we are to believe the polls which are at once leading and indicative of thought, some of the others, regardless of their good qualities, have a lesser chance. That's what the delegates are assigned to decide.
Nothing wrong with that, but I won’t tolerate people calling me a liar for pointing out his past statements.
Agreed. It serves no good. Barring any agenda the Tenn papers might have added (MSM, and all), it seems he is staunchly pro-life now. And I, for one, would love to hear him say the words or see a direct quote to that effect. (I have a feeling I may get an answer to that!)
I will vote for Fred if he wins the nomination. I don’t have the same visceral reaction to him as I do to some of the others. But I don’t want to sugarcoat his past either.
Visceral reaction, like my 'shudder' at the mention of Huckabee, ewww. I don't think we can afford to sugarcoat the past of any of the candidates, we don't need any October surprises next year.
I sometimes think the DUmmies must find it funny, the name-calling that sometimes erupts...
At least we, unlike the DUmmies, have some pretty good men to choose from. Hillary, Obama and Edwards? That’s worse than Algore, Kerry and Dukakis.