If Campaign Finance is you biggest hit against Fred's conservative bona fides AND you're a Mitt supporter...
Well it speaks volumes...
Let's see:
During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney "proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns," while during his 1994 Senate campaign Romney "publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs)." [The Hill, 2/8/07]
Is this your guy, this same Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, who seems to have wanted to tax political contributions?
Is this your guy, this same Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, who seems to have supported spending limits?
Is this your guy, this same Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, who seems to have wanted to git rid of PACs?
No, of course not! That would be silly.
Here is your guy:
Referring to the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance reform, Romney called it "one of the worst things in my lifetime." [The Hill, 2/8/07]
Now that's solid!
So much so he agrees with Fred Thompson that it was a mistake! Awesome!
I find it interesting that you use that as a "sticking" point with Thompson, as a conservative, and in turn support Mitt Romney, and in doing so state:
"If Fred were a solid Conservative..."
Lets look at solid shall we...
First and foremost Mitt joined the NRA last year
I assume in Romney world, that is a lifetime of supporting gun rights...
Just as recent as 2002 we have an associate of his say he is a pro life Mormon faking a pro choice stance. Even if it was a slip, it was a pretty honest one since Mitt even said he talked pro choice to those out of the state. I have linked on this more than a few times...
Don't get me started on that newspaper clipping Rovian Storm posted of Mitt saying he would be better for gay rights than Teddy boy...
Yes indeed Charles, I find it funny that you support Mitt and try and say he's a "solid" conservative.
I will grant you though, in statements and some deeds you are right, he is a solid, staunch conservative, and there is ample evidence to support that. The thing that disturbs me, and should any honest conservative, is that there is also ample evidence to support the exact opposite!
Either the man can't figure out where he stands, or more disturbing, he knows exactly where to stand in a given situation based on his goals at that time.
Solid? I don't think so...
I'll stick with the man who has the track record, warts and all. The one who admits honest mistakes and takes principled stands even if on the odd occasion they turn out wrong. I'll take the man who gives thorough thought and analysis to all issues, chooses a course and sticks to it despite the prevailing winds. The Man who has been a Republican and Conservative since his youth. The man with the broad knowledge of law and politics. The man with stances on a host of issues instead of a few hot button ones. I'll stick with a truly solid conservative who has been a LIFE member of the NRA for much longer than this election cycle...
Just like many conservatives here on this bastion of conservative discussion, just like its founder, I will stick with Fred Thompson.
Jonesie—yet another excellent post by you. Awesome. Thanks for the ping.
I don’t oppose Fred. He’s fine with me. My argument is against those who would accept Fred but reject others for not being perfect.
I’m consistant, I’m willing to accept flaws in the candidates. The Mitt-bashers here SAY they will not compromise, and then pick the guy who more than anybody made McCain/Feingold a reality.
That’s not consistant. And I’m tired of being called names by hypocrits. I’ll be happy to vote for Fred, but he’s not my first pick right now because I don’t see him able to win. But I’m tired of the Fred supporters castigating Mitt supporters for their “compromise”, when Fred supporters are compromising as well.