Posted on 12/01/2007 5:01:26 PM PST by Jay777
It's not going to be easy for a Republican to win in 2008--but someone who won the nomination by his own efforts has a better chance than someone who was just handed the nomination.
It’s a “51%” issue for me. IOW if a candidate is perfect on every other issue, but favors the legality of the execution of little people with no due process, he or she will not get my vote. Single issue? No - that’s why I’m for Hunter who is perfect on every issue, not just this one. But 47 million slaughtered babies is significant enough (duh) that it trumps any other issue of our day — unless someone can point to another that has resulting in a comparable loss of life. Abortion gives new meaning to “terror”.
One top tier guy does, even earning a recomendation from Numbers USA...
“Yes, I am aware of Fred’s resume. You left out Lobbyist, Watergate counsel and a prosecutor in Tennessee. “
Read the post, I wasn’t posting his resume.
I only posted his involvement in republican politics since he left the senate in 2002, because you were under the impression that he had been a “mothballed” old actor that was off the scene of active life.
Your snarky remark revealed that either you did not know Thompson’s resume, or that you thought that we didn’t know it.
“Still, there could be some who would ban abortion but don’t care about gay marriage, or are on the other side of the gay marriage issue.”
I’m not aware of any social conservative definitions that include men “marrying” each other.
If you listen to him telling us the below and you do not know that it is the closest to a formal endorsement that Rush will make, then you don’t know Rush.
“Now, this is not an endorsement. You know, I don’t endorse during primaries. I just point out: “
When you hear Rush tell you that and then proceed to pour honey all over a candidate, but all you hear is “this is not an endorsement” then you don’t know Rush.
Listening to the audio is even better, because after all his voice is a weapon itself, but here is the transcript.
RUSH: It was fascinating to me, as I said, to watch this because it hit me upside the head — even though, as I say, I instinctively knew this — that all of the top-tier candidates, because of these questions... See, there’s always a silver lining in everything. There’s always an upside. Some of you might not think of this as an upside or a silver lining, but the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson. Now, this is not an endorsement. You know, I don’t endorse during primaries. I just point out: These are things I noticed, and I’ve told you during the course of this one campaign year that one of the things that’s bothering me, is I’m a Reagan conservative, and I believe in conservatism. It’s in my soul and it’s in my heart, and I know it is the best way for us to manage our affairs to ensure the most prosperity for the most, to continue our freedom, to protect our country.
Conservatism sees people and sees potential. Liberalism looks at people and sees victims. Liberalism looks at people and sees incompetence, and, “We gotta help ‘em out and keep ‘em forever dependent so we’ll always have power.” Conservatives don’t want to use the government to empower themselves. They want to get government out of the way to empower other people. So, to me it matters, and we have a campaign now where most of the candidates are not genuine conservatives. They may be saying they are, but in their past they have done some things that are not conservative in any way, shape, manner, or form — and I think a lot of those things are being overlooked even by friends of mine in the conservative media because the obsession is Hillary. “Well, we gotta have somebody who can beat Hillary, and we can’t have the perfect candidate,” and so we gotta make the choice here based on who’s best equipped to win and beat Hillary. I understand that, and whoever the nominee is, I’m going to support them. So don’t misunderstand here. But I don’t like seeing “conservatism” being watered down as the way it’s defined. I don’t want people who are not conservative being said to be representatives of the “new conservatism.” There is no “new” conservatism. There is conservatism, and you either are or you aren’t.
You can be 80%, but it depends on what the other 20% are, and I’m just telling you that last night, it was Huckabee and Rudy and Mitt Romney, because of these questions, who were all faced with the reality — and everybody watching saw it — that they’ve got some governance in their pasts that is not conservative, and this is something that just hit me. While everybody is talking about Fred Thompson, “He’s too lazy. He’s too lackadaisical. He doesn’t seem to have whole lot of energy.” Fine and dandy. I’m not going to argue with people about your perceptions of attitudes and so forth. I will say this. I don’t think anybody would get into this mess running for the presidency, the media and all of these things. You can’t imagine what these people go through. You wouldn’t want to go through it, and I can’t imagine somebody put themselves through it if they really don’t want it.
Full transcript: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112907/content/01125108.guest.html
Thanks for the transcript.
All, let's not get bogged down in debating whether Rush endorsed Fred or not. The important thing is that Rush identified correctly that there is only one top tier candidate who isn't running on any moderate or liberal positions. And that candidate is Fred.
And my original position still applies. Rush should have said this much, much sooner.
It is already. Poll after poll shows that to get a "majority are pro-choice" poll result, you have to make it a question about an outright ban. Support for parental notification, waiting periods and other restrictions is strong even in blue states.
I disagree with you that a pro-life nominee will split the party, but I agree wholeheartedly with the following:
Those who want such a candidate say "Good! Tear it all down, and the rebuilding can start. Then, 2028 (or whenever) can be 1980 all over again" For myself, I don't think the nation can survive another 1964.
The Republic is in bad shape and may not be saved. But if we have to have Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama be the Commander-in-Chief and appoint 2-4 Supremes, I would say we are done, not right away but soon...within my parents' lifetimes for sure.
My snarky comment didn’t reveal anything. Also, I am not concerned with Fred’s involvement in Republican politics after 2002. You see, I am an American first, then a Conservative then I begin to think about Republicans.
Fred was a mediocre Senator at best, that is the crux of his experience in running for President. The Washington insider stuff you posted seemed light, so I posted a few other Fred accomplishments. What could possibly be your objection to that? I think perhaps you are confusing knowing with caring.
I realize your intentions, but I am not impressed with Washington insider, Republican politics.
I didn't discount them, I discounted the methodology of depending on one polling firm for almost all of your data.
Try to accept the evidence. We shouldn’t make excuses because it doesn’t coincide with our desires.
Are you aware that at roughly this point in 2003, Pew had Dean beating Kerry in Iowa by about 11 points? I can't find the Suvey USA results, but my source for the Pew poll says the Pew survey was "validating an earlier Survey USA poll." Kerry won, Dean came in third. Pew had Kerry beating Dean by 14 points in New Hampshire, Kerry won by 12 points.
Now, I don't have time to do further digging right now, but what do you trhink the chances are that Survey USA had Dean beating Bush in Iowa at this time in 2003? Or maybe Kerry? And if they had Bush beating them, did they get the margin right?
I am not sure how to reply to your comment exactly, because I have no idea what you mean. You made a lot of groundless assertions about “silly slams” and “noobs”, but never clearly articulated your meaning.
The post script in the comment was posted to UPS, as was the whole of the comment. I didn’t see a “slam” in the comment, silly or otherwise. You simply misunderstood, as I think it is clear exactly what that comment meant, to whom it was posted, and to which entities it was directed. Perhaps you realize that and jumped the gun to get a dig in on a Hunter supporter? Noob? Does that mean that I haven’t spent my life on the internet? Does that mean that my time at a site means that somehow my comments are of less value? A DU plant? That is low, really low, since it was all born of your ignorance. Next time ask, before you make baseless accusations about someone or something of which you have no knowledge.
“My snarky comment didn’t reveal anything”
No it didn’t, but to the uninformed your post 150 may have sounded like it did.
Your post needed to be corrected and I did it, no big deal.
Your post still looks like a silly slam on Duncan Hunter to me.
Sorry, I still don’t think you support Hunter.
Don’t be sorry. Your perceptions are your own, such as they are. I still don’t see how you could possibly, sincerely believe what you do, but the world will go on. You might have pointed out the slam part of that comment for me, I am just not seeing it. I mean “looks like” doesn’t really shed any light on your contention at all.
“PS; I am almost sure Bo Derek and the American Associated Union of International Equestrians & Horsies for Growth is going to endorse Hunter. Keep your fingers crossed.”
“the American Associated Union of International Equestrians & Horsies for Growth” ???
That stupid comment isn’t a slam against Hunter?
This is way overblown.
Fred is the unity candidate. Libertarians, Federalists and, begrudgingly Socons can support this guy.
He's NOT the Socon's ideal candidate...but he's close enuff, won't rupture the party and he can win.
I was talking about those who are opposed to abortion, something so heinous even a homo could be opposed.
Yes, we are a year out. But you only make the case on what you have at the time. The difference is that unlike Kerry and Dean, McCain, Giuliani, and Hillary are almost universally known entities.
I hope to God that we don't have to consider Rudy vs. Hillary, but if we do we're talking about a candidate that is much less than he should be vs. a candidate who is bad in every single way. To me that choice is a no-brainer. It is not principled to put the Republic in her hands.
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.