Thompson cautions against Clinton obsession

Agreed to your point regarding primaries...but to be very concerned about the potential harm of a Hillary adminstration and to focus on preventing it is not single issue..beyond SAVING the country..the harm she will do will not be single issue.

My point about the Times of London, Chamberlain, the BBC and many others of that time, is that they labeled as “war mongers” and “alarmists” anyone who warned of what the Nazis were really about and were going to do.

Of course, if you know your history (and it seems you do), there WERE those warning of Tokyo and their intent...the Democratic Administration ignored them...there were those who warned that there were spies in government...Roosevelt labeled as “f***king fools” those who warned him...now declassified documents show that they were 100% correct.

But I do understand your point...our problem now is that there seems to be no one GOP canidate that most of us want to vote FOR...so we a left with “stopping Hillary.”

While your post in its entirety is of generally common-sense tenor...(and it's always good to incorporate history as you do), I still am left a bit confused.

You see you start off saying that deep concern "about the potential harm of a Hillary adminstration and to focus on preventing it is not single issue..."...and then you end saying, .."our problem now is that there seems to be no one GOP canidate that most of us want to vote FOR...so we a left with 'stopping Hillary.'"

Do you see what I'm pointing at? You first say, "Nope, Hillary's not a single issue." Then you conclude, "Well, we're left with one single issue--stopping Hillary."

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

I find it extremely ironic that RINOs in the party through the years, and in recent threads from folks to the right of RINOS, continually point the finger at consistent pro-life Republicans, saying, "You single-issue folks are gonna be the death of the Republicans." But they can't see the other half of the obvious: "You single-issue (anti-Hillary) Republicans are going to be the continued death of the pre-born."

So, if the ship is sinking and all are at risk, if you ask me who'll I'll try to save even if the conditions are optimal for no one, I think the pre-born outranks the party.

It’s hard for pisant to figure out any thing, he is too busy scratching his head

"we need to figure out what we want to do."

If only Fred had figured it out before running for President.

When you figure out what you stand for, Fred, please tell us. We already know what you're against banning gay marriage throughout the nation. Please tell us what you're for.

References to "Hillary-care'' and other derisive remarks about Clinton's platform might rile up the conservative base.

Well, we know Thompson sure isn't interested in riling up the conservative base. He won't dance to anyone's tune.

The only thing that is really puzzling to me is Guiliani’s poll numbers. Why so high in comparison to everyone else? Unless it is purely ignorance with the voters.

1) 9/11
2) 9/11
3) 9/11

LOVE your screen name! When I saw it, I immediately heard in my mind an old folk song, "Sweet Sunny South" sung by Joan Baez. A woman for whom I babysat while I was in high school had it on an album, and I used to listen to it all the time.

Take me back to the place where I first saw the light
To the sweet sunny south take me home
Where the mockingbirds sing me to sleep every night
Oh, why was I tempted to roam?

When Her Heinous is the nominee, I’m sure Fred will make sure to point out all her, ahem, deficiencies.

When you figure out what you stand for, Fred, please tell us. We already know what you're against banning gay marriage throughout the nation. Please tell us what you're for.

Fred knows what he stands for, and that wasn't the point of the article. He was talking about what the PEOPLE want in their candidates, and sniping, haranguing, and running everyone else down is NOT what the average voter wants. Some folks at FR would love that, for sure, but we're a small group of a very large amount of voters.

As for what Fred stands for, you can educate yourself quite easily by going to Fred08.com

Rudy’s poll numbers are high because he is going after the dems the hardest.

I think it's because, besides John McCain, he's the one that folks immediately knew about. They knew him because of his actions just after 9/11, and admired him for that.

What I mean when I say that Hillary is not a single issue is to consider the full scope of the potential for damage that Hillary plus the democrat Congress can bring upon us.

1. Socialized medicine and the ruin of the American health care system.

2. Does ANYONE really believe that the democrats will control our borders? (they see them as potential voters..not as illegals). Unsecured borders could mean DEATH to millions as terrorists enter.

3. A stacked Supreme Court filled with like minded anti-Constitutionalists...redrawing of districts, rulings that will assure NO conservative president or Congress again.

4. A Chamberlain fashioned “let’s talk to our ememies” approach to controlling the world’s despots.

Of course, the list would go on and on...so this is what I mean when I say that Hillary it is NOT single issue.

AS for the pre-born...The GOP cannot win without the support of Conservative Christians, just as it cannot win without the support of the moderates...the GOP has to be a true big tent (not the fake one the dems have) to win...the vote margins are razor thin...without moderates, conservatives, and Christian conservatives, the GOP loses national races. I know you saw the Rasmussen poll suggesting the 27% of the GOP base will not vote for a pro-abortion canidate...they will NOT vote democrat...just won’t vote ( I don’t think all 27% would hold out, but enough with razor thin margins to assure a dem win.)

When I say that, for NOW, we are left with “stopping Hillary”, I am stating that it is the ONLY unifying factor now. There is NOT one GOP canidate electrifying the base. Stopping Hillary (and all democrats) should be our focus, because if she wins, the pro-lifers LOSE, the conservatives lose, the Constitutionists lose, the physical conservatives lose, the buisness sector will lose, our health care system will be destroyed, free speech will be trampled, the military will be gutted to pay for expanding welfare...and on and on and on.

I agree on pts #1, 3 & 4. And thank you for explaining the multi-faceted aspects underlying HC.

2. Does ANYONE really believe that the democrats will control our borders? (they see them as potential voters..not as illegals).

Very true. But does ANYONE really believe that the Republicans can move from talk to action?

I know you saw the Rasmussen poll suggesting the 27% of the GOP base will not vote for a pro-abortion canidate...they will NOT vote democrat...just won’t vote ( I don’t think all 27% would hold out, but enough with razor thin margins to assure a dem win.)

You understand, though, that first of all, pro-lifers aren't "single-issue" from a variety of perspectives.

(1) A whole host of issues, particularly social issues and moral values are of concern to us.

(2) Just like you pointed out that underlying the surface "single-issue" of Hillary are a whole host of festering issues, that's likewise true for a pro-lifer like myself. For example, if a politician won't protect the "least of these," then who will he or she protect? If they see children as "throwaways," what do they really think of the rest of us? You see, how they treat the most vulnerable to me is one of the best character indicators there is. So I also heavily consider character as key in evaluating candidates.

Frankly, Rudy lacks character. The very Greek word from which "character" comes means "image." He looks at the images of humanity in the womb and deems them perfectly expendable.

Also, one of the precise reasons we don't have folks paying into social security is that they were aborted. Look at how many schools have been closed around this country since 1985. Look at how many fewer educators we've needed. On and on from an economic perspective. Millions of less consumers to purchase products, etc.

So when politicians flunk "abortion," they flunk social justice, and they flunk character, and they flunk economics as well.

Stopping Hillary (and all democrats) should be our focus, because if she wins, the pro-lifers LOSE, the conservatives lose, the Constitutionists lose, the physical conservatives lose, the buisness sector will lose, our health care system will be destroyed, free speech will be trampled, the military will be gutted to pay for expanding welfare...and on and on and on.

Hey, Americans stopped both the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII. We can tackle two foes simultaneously. So stopping Hillary and Rudy should be our focus. Because if either wins, babies continue to lose, the institution of marriage is lost, moral values become a lost cause, the Republican party becomes a lost cause (at least temporarily), homosexual rights will invade every corner of America--starting with our schools, gun rights undergo deterioration, the abortion industry becomes increasingly funded, etc.

So tell me why this is so attractive to so-called conservative Republicans again?

To the second assumption, I would point out that Rudy Giuliani dropped out of a Senate election and gave her a Senate seat for free. Without that Senate seat, would she be a viable Presidential candidate? I wonder.

No. She wouldn’t. Wouldn’t stand a chance. That’s why she ran in one of the most liberal states in the union-to ensure it-and she and Bill have had this planned since at least 1993, perhaps earlier. Had Rooty not dropped out, and turned it over to The Carpetbagger, we’d never have had to worry about the Clintons and their mechinations again. And that’s the main reason why I could never vote for him now.