I guess you don't get it. If I owned a Ford, but got rid of it...you can't play "Pin the tail on the Republican donkey" by taking aim at my Ford fidelity. There would be no Ford fidelity.
...yet Romney’s faith makes him worthy of utter condemnation? A bit of a double standard here.
OK, how many folks are going door to door pitching Fred Thompson's (past?) faith? Is there a satellite TV station called RU-TV?
Wouldn’t you rather expect Thompson to join a mainstream Christian church and be a faithful attendant thereof? That would, at least, make your stance consistent - AND it would make Thompson a much better representative of Evangelical voters... wouldn’t it? Yet Thompson gets a pass.
Whose rationalizing anything? Have you ever seen me plug Fred? (The answer's "No") Do I defend Fred? (The answer's "No") Do I see FREEPER folks defending Fred's spirituality anywhere for me to take issue with them on any specifics? (The answer's "No") If I were to "cut down" a Fred Thompson restoration tree and no FREEPERS responded, it'd be silly conversing with myself (it seems that whatever "restoration" in question is not important to folks & it seemingly stopped being important to Fred somewhere along the way).
That would, at least, make your stance consistent...
Speaking of consistency...while you haven't been a big Mitt defender (faith-wise, yes; otherwise, no...I seem to recall you being "iffy" on Mitt for a while), perhaps at times you've defended his switch on social issues (yes? no?). And if not you, I know many LDS keep asking, "Why attack what Mitt used to believe? That's yesteryear's tenets he held onto. Let's move on." So, if you think that's a good argument of theirs (perhaps you've said as much a time or two)...then it would also apply to Fred. If you were then "consistent" you would have to say, "Why attack Fred on what he used to believe? That's yesteryear's tenets he held onto. Let's move on."
~”OK, how many folks are going door to door pitching Fred Thompson’s (past?) faith?”~
Wait, so that’s your argument? Romney’s an unacceptable candidate because Mormon missionaries keep knocking on your door?
~”Do I see FREEPER folks defending Fred’s spirituality anywhere for me to take issue with them on any specifics?”~
Interesting you mention that. The conversation normally goes something like this:
“Mormons are bad.”
“No we aren’t!”
You’re acting like we’re living in a world like this:
“No we aren’t!”
“Mormons are bad.”
Generally speaking, if detractors didn’t bring up Romney’s faith, it’d hardly come up at all in political threads where he’s the subject. In fact, I found much of August and September to be just that way, and it was quite nice.
~”...I seem to recall you being “iffy” on Mitt for a while...”~
You recall correctly, though I am becoming less so. I’m finding him to be the least politically unacceptable of the viable candidates. Another week or so, I think, and I won’t be able to claim the “iffy-ness.”
~”perhaps at times you’ve defended his switch on social issues”~
No, they rather bug me. I have gone so far as to say that at least he’s moving in the right direction (flipping) and not flopping back. Frankly, I think a Mormon stake president should have been more staunchly pro-life in his public policies. I may be a bit harder on him because we share the same faith, and my human prejudices cause me to expect more from him. But, conversions do happen, and I believe firmly in redemption; I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I will say, though, that he hasn’t switched on nearly so many issues as some of his detractors like to claim (one example being the gay marriage issue).
~””Why attack what Mitt used to believe? That’s yesteryear’s tenets he held onto. Let’s move on.” So, if you think that’s a good argument of theirs (perhaps you’ve said as much a time or two)...then it would also apply to Fred. If you were then “consistent” you would have to say, “Why attack Fred on what he used to believe? That’s yesteryear’s tenets he held onto. Let’s move on.””~
Look, I’ve been holding off on my support (as if little ol’ me matters much) because I wanted to see what Thompson brought to the table. I don’t really like how Thompson’s performed so far, and I think he goes too far in his application of federalism, which impacts a number of crucial issues. So, I’ve found him lacking.
I have, like you, commented on the double-standard. How is Thompson given this aura of Conservative Savior when he’s migrated right just as far as Romney has, and has plenty of blemishes in his record to rankle conservatives? Yet Romney gets pilloried for the same evolution while Thompson gets a pass, at least here on FR.
My disenchantment with Thompson, though, is due to what I see in his issues NOW, and my fondness for Romney is due to what qualities I see in him NOW. I’d be happy to explain further, if you’re interested.