Posted on 10/24/2007 4:11:29 PM PDT by wagglebee
Instructions were given not to speak to the media, and since I am the media, I took that to mean details discussed were off-the-record and, of course, I'll honor that.
But speaking in generalities, two dilemmas were hashed:
Generalized outcomes of the meeting:
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Stop Huckabee!
PING!
Most in the room supported Mike Huckabee. A few important figures supported Duncan Hunter.
*******************************************
I like them both I would like to see them as a team...
>Well he is for amnesty and he oly raised Arkansas taxes 0.6 percent. To his people that is a tax cut.<
Oh, that’s right, Arkansas was a slave state, and he’s also promised them more slaves!
IMO-for what little its worth:
Duncan Hunter is the best, but is getting little traction.
I don't trust Romney.
Thompson might be the best that we can get.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
The Perkins endorsement to Romney was disgusting, a rotten mouthful of corruption.
On top of my skepticism of Dobson, which I’ve had for at least 15 years (for theological reasons), I have less reason than ever to be impressed with Dobson.
Praying ain't gonna cut it...I don't care if she IS a woman...the GOP has to start going after Hillary NOW! This business about not being able to attack her because she's a woman is stupid. This is the big leagues now and the gloves need to come off! I'm sick of all of this pussy-footin' around that woman. She's evil, she's power hungry, and she needs to be stopped now.
More:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1915749/posts?page=42#42
The Conservative Case For — And Against — Mike Huckabee
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/23/1-out-of-56-is-not-most/
At the GOP debate the other night, Mike Huckabee made an odd claim.
“When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator.”
“Most” of the signers were clergy? Is that true? Actually, no.
Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University).
A few more of the signers were former clergymen, though it’s a little unclear just how many…. We’d like to give Huckabee every benefit of the doubt, but even if you consider former clergymen among the signers the best you could come up with is four. Out of 56. That’s not “most,” that’s Pants-on-Fire wrong.
It’s a common problem at the Republican debates — why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good soundbite?
I disagree. There is plenty of time to go after Hitlery during the general election.
What is important right now is to select the most electable candidate possible- That being the candidate of the most unassailable character to armor him against attack by the Democrat smear factory. He must also have impeccable conservative credentials to pull the base together and utilize it to the fullest degree.
That is what we must look for.
what a hugely disappointing article.
Not ONE mention of Thompson!!! proven conservative credentials and NO mention ... huh?!?
Romney dismissed on the basis of bigotry (he’s Mormon. Note to bigots: get over yourself about it, he’s running for president not pastor) NO mention of his support for Federal marriage Amendment.
And all this fluff about Huckabee. Why? Because he’s prolife. Is that so standout, in a field of multiple prolife contenders?
Thanks for the ping.
B4DH
I'd suggest if you want to be consistent, then issue the following bulletins: Note to Baptists: get over yourself about it...if you vote for fellow Baptist Huckabee, then you're a bigot 'cause you're voting for a pastor, not a president. Then you'd also have to say: Note to Mormons: get over yourself about it...if you vote for fellow Mormon Romney, then you're a bigot 'cause you're voting for an ex-LDS bishop, not a president.
Let's show some consistency...or do you always go around utilizing liberal pot-shot tactics by engaging in name-calling?
OK. Why is it that you can say this and the bigot patrol come out of the FREEPER woodwork & slap you around some as a "bigot" for suggesting that people consider faith/religion as a primary or only reason for voting for someone?
And why haven't you similarly scolded Mormons who may be voting for MR only or primarily because of the Mormon connection? (Why only one-way "bigotry" labels in these threads?)
Show me in print where he was endorsed? (You won’t be able to find it)
Thank you for the ping.
Unless you are trying make a joke out of the fact that Huckabee’s a pastor, you are not making sense.
I don’t know of anyone going around saying other candidates are unfit to be President because of the particular sect or Church they belong to. Only Mitt, despite being the one frontrunner married to his first wife, is hit with that, in some cases from freepers with “mormon” issues.
The consistent position is to check their morals and values, understand that any President will be working for all Americans of many different faiths, and not dismiss a candidate just because they don’t go to the same church as yourself.
The original term ‘bigot’ referred to French women who looked down at people who went to the ‘wrong’ church, back when Europe had wars between catholics and protestants. If the shoe fits ... Americans decided that fighting wars over what church you went to was stupid, and we decided on religious liberty instead and the 1st amendment. That’s worked out far better than having a 30-years-war over such things.
“The Family Research Council can’t do math. They have ‘til about the beginning of February to make up their minds. By the end of Feb 5 over 1300 of the 2400 delegates will be chosen.”
While this is important, it is only important if the first vote at the convention results in 1 person getting 50% plus at least 1 vote. If no one wins by a majority, the delegates are free to vote to whoever they choose in any subsequent votes.
Well, if you had defenders of Dennis Kucinich in these threads, I'm sure more of his increasing fascination with New Age teachings would be discussed. (So it's not just Mitt's spiritual leanings that up are for discussion; so is Hillary's past White House seances and I know Nancy Reagan's astrology, etc. has been under discussion in the past...so in that way, I'm sure why you think these things should perhaps be off-limits(?))
Certainly Pat Robertson's religious ties & religious intensity wasn't off the MSM and voter discussion loop back in '88 when he ran.
The consistent position is to check their morals and values, understand that any President will be working for all Americans of many different faiths, and not dismiss a candidate just because they don’t go to the same church as yourself.
I don't take aim at reps of different churches of the historic Christian faith. Other than some unitarian presidents who happened to be around well before I was born, we've haven't had members of cults running for POTUS before. (So if you think folks can just lump what cultists believe in with any ole' church, then you're deliberately--or in ignorance--sanctioning those who send a message that the LDS church is just one "Christian" church among many...Well, I'm sorry, but even the LDS church doesn't believe that).
The original term ‘bigot’ referred to French women who looked down at people who went to the ‘wrong’ church, back when Europe had wars between catholics and protestants.
Thanks for your enlightening word on this (and I'm serious about that; not being sarcastic). But actually, you're making my point: In Joseph Smith's original vision, which every true believing Mormon adheres to, that's exactly what Mormons believe and teach and embody in their Pearl of Great Price "Scripture." Joseph Smith - History -- vv. 18-19 precisely records the "First Vision" upon which LDS was founded...
And in v. 18, Joseph Smith asks an unnamed personage which church he should join; and was told "none of them...for they were all wrong."
So, with your enlightening account of where the word "bigot" came from...you are basically confirming that all Mormons who believe this original vision and founding doctrine of their church are in fact "bigots." (Now why do I want to vote for an outright "bigot" again?)
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.