I've been told to shut up and crawl across the glass by some folks.
Never again.
Posted on 10/15/2007 10:56:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I've been told to shut up and crawl across the glass by some folks.
Never again.
I’ve heard you say that, but all the others have already disappointed me and Fred hasn’t yet.
I believe you were disappointed, I think it possible he might disappoint, anything is possible.
Fred is the best choice IMHO.
Thompson, while a Watergate counselor, asked the critical questions that unraveled the coverer of a corrupt president. While a private attorney, Thompson took a case of a disabused public employee that brought down a corrupt sitting governor. A movie was made about this case with Thompson playing himself in his first cinematic role. Not bad for a young lawyer from Tennessee, instrumental in ending the careers of a corrupt President and a corrupt Governor and getting into the movies at the same time. Stands up pretty well to someone who briefly used his law degree to help low income Hispanics.
Thompson never provided "legal representation to two of the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103." Thompson did give legal advice, concerning jurisdiction, to a colleague who was representing Lybian intelligence officials implicated in the Pan Am 103 bombing, but I bet you really knew this.
Thompson dedicated his legislative experience to fighting the growth of the federal government and protecting Constitutionally guaranteed States Rights. He also fought against profligate spending and legislative "pork". Hunter, on the other hand, has served the people of the United States by being a champion of big government and big government spending including being one of the "porkiest" feeders at the trough of American taxpayers money. No question of who the conservative is here.
Fred Thompson has been successful as an attorney, both public and private, a Senator, a lobbyist and a TV and movie actor. This doesn't even take into consideration his skills that were used successfully to get one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices ratified by the Senate or his position on the committee counseling the Bush administration on threats to our Country. Hunter has been feeding from the public trough most of his adult life and has demonstrated no ability to succeed at anything else.
Hunter has some good conservative positions on some things and not so conservative on others. However, after many months, he has demonstrated that he does not have the ability to run a successful national campaign. His support is marginal a best. This is no ones fault but his own.
You can keep beating your head against the wall by supporting a sometime conservative who hasn't got the charisma, and therefore support, of any appreciable number of people, and at the same time damaging any support he might have by false attacks on other conservative candidates. I actually want to defeat Hillary and put a conservative in as President. Therefore I will continue to support Fred Thompson even if it means having to swat a few gnats along the way.
I guess the whole concept of hypothetical situations is lost on you?
I beg to differ.....they haven't changed their minds. They've just changed their tact.
He needs to do more like the video he made in reply to Michael Moore.....
I know of many lawyers that are good solid conservatives....
I’m sick of it as well! Thank you!
I agree. I wish more (all of them) would make the same commitment.
If you really believe this you have real problems. Conservatives are to blame for Hunter's lack of support? If you want to blame someone, except Hunter himself who is truly to blame, you can look to yourself, and other Hunter supporters, many of who have tarnished the appearance of your own candidate by the uncalled for attacks on other conservative candidates.
Sour grapes makes for sour whine.
Hillary will be bad...for 4 years.
If Rudy wins he will also be the default nominee for 2012. After 8 years of Rudy, the GOP will never be the same. It will never be seen as a pro-life party. So I’m thinking way way beyond hillary.
I didn’t blame anyone, you said Hunter was a marginalized candidate, right? I said, “those who claim to be conservatives”, not conservatives.
You and others on this thread made some comments about Hunter and you were on the whole “career politician meme” and then have the nerve to cry about Fred being run down and sour grapes?
The truth is no one was running anyone down except for Fred supporters and I all I said was in defense of Hunter. The truth is you want us to shut up because the emperor has no clothes. If you and others want to sit around and convince yourselves the candidates in the top tier are conservatives and are willing to trust they will do as they say, go for it.
I don’t see all the attacks, uncalled for or otherwise. You made a comment about Hunter that was everything but a positive show of support but I didn’t cry about it and make silly claims you were tarnishing a conservative did I? I just replied to the comment. There are other conservative candidates? You learn something new everyday, heh.
You left out CFR in your history of Thompson post. Sure glad he was “protecting” my rights. You also forgot to add he voted for amnesty for 1 million illegals and to bring foreign workers to America.
He also now seems to believe in the global warming scam now. Yeah, and after his global warming on Mars article. You are right about one thing though, Wall St. doesn’t like Duncan Hunter nor does the Club for ChiCom Growth. That is a good thing.
You're fairly new here, but you can't be that naive. Check out post #67, the post I was responding to, or post #137. Of course they are among the many, often rabid, posts by mkjessup, someone who appears to be a plant in Hunter's campaign with the job to discredit Hunter whenever he can by making hysterically false accusations about other candidates, name calling, and in general sounding as shrill as a Hillary supporter. Doing a good job of it, too.
Not sure what my being “fairly new” has to do with my naivety or anything else for that matter. I won’t presume to speak for another but I saw nothing in those posts that would fall outside the parameters of heated debate. I couldn’t really characterize them as attacks, per se.
Perhaps, Fred representing Libyan terrorists could be called into question but technically that was also correct. That issue was debated and Fred’s complete and truthful involvement was given in reply to the post in question. So, the truth came out that’s what matters, right? On this very thread, I saw some things that were untrue posted about Hunter. I corrected them and moved on. That’s what primaries and this forum are all about in my opinion. You discuss, debate, get all the points of view and information, fact check it, and we are all the better for it.
BTW, the Rooty supporters who were here when I first came didn’t find me naive or new I don’t think. They said, “I attacked Rudy” and I probably did. It was always an attack with facts and the truth and a little exposure to the light is a good thing, unless you’re a vampire
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.