*****************
Absolutely! Go Fred!
Posted on 10/24/2007 10:07:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson yesterday staked out one of the toughest plans on the campaign trail to curb illegal immigration, trying to reignite the issue among the GOP faithful who rose up in revolt against a more moderate approach in Congress earlier this year.
Highlighting what he believes are key vulnerabilities for his main rivals, Thompson called for stripping federal funds from cities and states that do not report illegal immigrants and criticized Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for allowing so-called sanctuary cities in New York and Massachusetts.
The first principle of Thompson's plan is "No Amnesty," a clear shot at another rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who joined President Bush in trying unsuccessfully to push through a sweeping immigration overhaul bill that would have created a guest worker program and provided a path to possible citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.
Thompson's plan provoked a new round of sparring among the contenders, underscoring that polls indicate that none of them has been able to emerge in the minds of Republican voters as the candidate best able to fix the broken immigration system.
Party officials in key primary states said yesterday that the candidate who can win voters' trust on immigration could make significant gains. Polls indicate that Republicans care more than Democrats about the issue and support a harder line against illegal immigrants.
"It's a very significant issue in America that few politicians are willing to tackle head-on, and when they do, they tackle it the wrong way," said Karen Hanretty, a Thompson spokeswoman. She said Thompson will trumpet his plan today in South Carolina, which holds the first Southern primary, on Jan. 19, and will address it Saturday in Iowa, which holds the first caucus, on Jan. 3.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
From what I can tell, Hunter’s got great positions on all the right issues, but no traction. Let’s push for a VP slot for Hunter with Fred, then we’ll have a built in incumbent for 2016.
Bullseye. In the realm of politics, power and government it's irrelevant who first conceives an idea. The only thing that really matters is who can effectively sell it to the voters and thus gain the political power to implement it.
In politics and government, ideas without the power to implement them are worthless.
Does Hunter deliver a state?
Hillary Clinton is rumored to be picking the Ohio State Governor.
If Thompson or Romney are being tactical, they will pick a governor from a must carry state.
Makes you wonder what exactly is going on here, these people involved in the incidents in the link were campaign and marketing professionals, not some bunch of college kids pulling pranks. So it can only be two things.
Either one, the people involved in both incidents thought this would be ok with Romney, so they had to get that idea from somewhere or two, they did not think about it at all and are grossly incompetent at their jobs, again not a great reflection on the consummate executive professional.
So Hunter’s low numbers are a conspiracy? LMAO you are getting in to Paul Territory now.
*****************
Absolutely! Go Fred!
If he had any traction he would be attacked by the MSM.
***You have a point there. All the candidates in the top tier have basically been propped up by the MSM as their vision of what republicanism should be. The MSM is good at herding sheep if nothing else.
I voted for Hunter in the recent FR poll. Mainly because I think he’s a stronger social conservative advocate on the stump. But I’m voting for Thompson in the primary because he has a shot to win and has a petty good conservative record across the board.
I’ve told those still supporting Hunter if he could jump up in the polls to 7%-10% I’d help him move up. But he shows no signs of doing so and I am NOT going to abandon the only other acceptable candidate in this race who DOES show good traction allowing RINO’s an unimpeded path to victory.
I don’t think fear would surmise my mood so much as “practical” as to whom I’m decided to support.
Those two would never get anywhere close to a Thompson Administration. The place would be crawling with Mike Dewines and Spencer Abrahams.
What are Hunter’s earmarks, ace?
You sound like a democrat. Quote me don’t toss nonsense around like that.
The democrats took control of the house because they ran candidates that were more conservative than the Republican incumbents.
Rahm Emanuel proposed and convinced the DNC to recruit enough conservatives to regain control of the House. It worked only now they have a problem of controlling those dem conservatives.
For example, the dem that ran and won against Hayworth in Arizona is more anti-illegal alien than Hayworth was.
I'm sorry...I know it's not where you were going, but the absurdity of the very thought of documenting Hillary Clinton's positions and locking it down made me chuckle out loud.
That's walking-a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle material.
“... which is why you see almost no press about him.”
You might have that backwards. The “press”, being largely liberal, has no interest in showcasing an actual conservative candidate. They would much rather people continue to believe there isn’t really that much difference between the parties.
To that end, they push Republican candidates that have known weakneses. Mitt the flip-flopper from a gay state who implemented socialist medicine and can’t make a wartime decision without consulting his lawyers. Rudy who favors illegal immigration, abortion, and gun control. McCain who favors illegal immigration. Fred who did lobbying work for abortionists and has a trophy wife. Huckabee who panders to the class warfare crowd and supports open borders.
The last thing the liberal media wants is for Republicans to learn about a candidate like Duncan Hunter who shows that there really are big differences between the parties.
Sorry— lost the thread that was on.
They showcase conservatives and conservatism, alright...in a very specific way designed to make them (us?) look like monsters. Appealing to the naive five-year-old within the target audience...
The infamous "ketchup as a vegetable for school lunch" debacle with Reagan. It persists today.
Meanwhile, my only thought on the subject is, "Hey, I've got a school lunch program for you: It's called 'The Make Your Kid a D*mn Sandwich and Put It in a Brown Bag Program'." Boom. Problem solved for all eternity. But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
They're doing it again with that B.S. "children's health care bill". Where is the representation of the TRUE conservative calmly and completely explaining that it is not the average taxpayer's duty to provide health care for ANYONE. Somebody to remind the masses that tax revenue is not freely obtained.
(I still laugh about the news coverage when GWB gave out those $800 tax checks in 2001. The interviews with Helga the Trailertrash and her weepy tale of how she could use the $800 for her and her 85 kids, but wouldn't be getting a check. In small print: she didn't pay any taxes...shhh! Meanwhile, no mention of the millions of tax paying people using the money for any number of things productive and/or fun and the various businesses enjoying the bump.)
Will they ever showcase the conservative without throwing up examples of why they are "mean" and "nasty"? No way. Never gonna happen.
>>"Does national sovereignty mean anything to you?"<<
Answer-- yes.
Mike Huckabee? Are you kidding? Who are you people? The TownCrier ^ | TownCrier
Posted on 10/23/2007 8:22:42 AM PDT by pissant
Good, then you should be supporting Hunter.
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.