Posted on 09/24/2007 7:00:11 AM PDT by Doofer
His endorsements do carry weight with some people, but in this particular case, this was a PRIVATE e-mail that got leaked to the press.
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.
- Abraham Lincoln -
You really need to review the time line:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/THOMPSON_DOCS/thompson_records.pdf
It really does appear that they were paying him to talk on the phone.
The bills after November 1, 1991 were 0.2 hours here to 0.4 hours there for “telephone conference with DeSarno,” a couple of which were followed up with 0.7 and 0.2 hrs “review of documents.” All mention of the “Administration official” ended October 10, 1991.
ok, in what way did Bauer fall from grace?
I've reviewed the time line and the abortionist was a client of Thompson's at least up until August 1992. It seems kind of risky to assume that Thompson was serving his client in some sort of innocuous capacity. The abortionist is holding all the cards...and who knows what choice documents.
Well, the bills say 15 to 25 minutes on the phone with the woman and no one else
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/THOMPSON_DOCS/thompson_records.pdf
"This may be the only time I have ever disagreed with The Good Doctor."
It may be the first time I've disagreed with him, too.
But, I do disagree with him.
You might notice that poster signed up only weeks ago. Many new trolls have signed up on FR recently. Are they really the conservatives they pretend to be? Of course not.
One (Thompson) has been reliably Pro-Life as evidenced by his statement, voting record, and endorsements, whilst the other (Romney) is a late convert to the Pro-Life position as evidenced by his statements, Administrative record, and endorsements.
Your comparison is worse than an apples and oranges comparison. But I dare say that you knew that when you made it.
Of course it was... I do forget that sarcasm isn't always evident on plain text. It was intended to be a poke in the eye to the Romney crew.
I do believe that voting is a privledge and should be taken seriously. I also believe that many people feel their vote isn’t “lost” as long as they voted for the candidate they want. It isn’t fun to read nasty comments made between people concerning their choice of candidate. Guess it comes down to one’s goal. Is it to keep a candidate from another party from a possible win? If you have two or more candidates you “would” vote for, do you try to pick the one you feel has the best chance of beating the other party’s candidate? I know I will vote for whomever wins the nomination of the Republican party. But in the nomination process I will pick a candidate I really like and one I believe will have a very good chance in winning the office of President. Sometimes this means I choose the one I like “second best”. That is my choice just as someone’s decision to stay with their “first best” is their choice. We all have things to weigh in our final decision and thank God we all have the privledge to make our own choice!
Sorry to hear about that. You do not seem to be alone in the experience. I have no first hand knowledge, but have heard many others in your same situation. God bless your efforts.
IMHO, It is always a mistake to vote against the other party. It leads one to compromise to attain a supposed popularity. That assumption is false. The other party has little to do with it. Republicans win or lose depending on whether or not they turn out their own base.
Intrinsically, that requires a candidate to be palatable to all the various factions of the base, and each to a large degree. If the Republican base is mobilized in it's entirety the Republicans will win.
One must always remember that America votes conservatively. With the exception of city centers, liberals must run far to the right to get elected once their primaries are over. If Republicans chicken out and elect a moderate or Rino, that candidate must also run to the right in the general election in order to pick up the Republican base.
This invariably leads to the Republican candidate being easy pickings for the Democrat, as all the Democrat must do is show that the Republican is not as he seems to be (easily done by the record), causing the Republican to lose support from his base.
It is well known that the Republican base will seldom allow any untruth. Any proven tryst or lie, any appearance of impropriety or even irresponsibility is held against the candidate. This does not amount to votes for the Democrat, but it does become a loss of votes for the Republican.
Republicans should therefore strive to pick candidates of impeccable character, honor and principled thought; for only such a candidate can withstand the withering fire they must pass through in order to secure a victory. A true conservative will pass through easily. All else is loss.
If you have two or more candidates you “would” vote for, do you try to pick the one you feel has the best chance of beating the other party’s candidate?
The candidate's wisdom, character, conviction to principles, and resulting record must always be the first consideration... Thereafter one must winnow the remainder by personality and demeanor, and other ancillary considerations.
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.