Posted on 12/21/2007 7:23:12 PM PST by mdittmar
He is a good man. The best.”
________________________
Yes he is.
Oh, my goodness! Did I need a laugh, tonight, or what?
LOL!
Yeah, well Hunter is the furthest thing from Kerry by far. Smith gets credit here and it only shows Hunter is capable of bringing in the vote from various people. Smith was a Senator and a more conservative one at that though he clearly had some weird issues at times as with that endorsement. Duncan Hunter’s record proves that he does not sell his conservatism out unlike other candidates.
As a New Hampshire conservative, I can assure you that Bob Smith is a MORON.
Let me guess, you’re one of those “true” conservatives, with everyone that doesn’t fall in lockstep with your beliefs a liberal, right?
I’m a Conservative who isn’t pig-ignorant stupid enough to ignore the blatant actions of liberal RINO frauds and believe that they’re actual Conservatives. If Hillary Clinton told you she was a Conservative, would you believe it ? No ? Then why would you believe liberal RINOs with a track record of drastically improving liberal and Democrat fortunes (clear up until THIS year) when they tell you THEY are now “solid” Conservatives, and just in time to run for President.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Rudy McRombee are enemies of the Conservative cause and the Republican party. Period.
Well, yea, I do but I’ve been over and over that in other threads and I really don’t want to hash it out again. So flame away if you must but I just can’t do it all again. This is a place for opinions. We each have our own and it looks like we’ll have to leave it at that. No reason not to be FRiends though.
Sounds like a page out of the Clinton play book.
Because "conservatives" wanted to wait around for Fred! like the Great Pumpkin instead of immediately going to bat for Hunter when he announced. Completely bought into that "he can't win!" self-fulfilling BS.
Sure you are entitled to your opinions. But Free Republic is not just about posting undocumented opinions and name calling. Dem sites engage in shrill name calling all the time. We’re better than that. I just don’t believe any of our Republican candidates should be called “liars” - not Mitt - not any of them. So that’s my opinion. :-)
I have my own concerns with Mitt but lying is not one of them. Take care.
Hey, now I get it. I may be slow but with help I usually get er done. Thanks. Just one less thing to learn and I’m running out of time. : )
Yup, and I submit both Huckster and Romney have “ties” to the Clintoons. Huckster, of course, being from the same small town as Clinton, but more to the point, who retained the bulk of his appointments as AR Governor (see, Huckster never bothered during his 11 years in office to try to put a Republican stamp on the state, he just left the old Clintonistas around, so many of which were still there by this past January that when the incoming Democrat Governor, Mike Beebe, was asked, “Why didn’t you fire his (Huckster’s) people ?” Beebe said, “Why would I ? They’re all Democrat leftovers from the Clinton days.”).
Now about Joe Isuzu Romney. Since Romney is a disciple of Slick Willie Weld (the King of RINO Governors in the northeast), Romney continued the job of destroying the party as a viable opposition to the Democrats (indeed, when Weld came into office in 1991, “heavily Dem Massachusetts” was 4 seats away from the Republicans tying control of one of the Houses in the state legislature, they were competitive for statewide and federal offices, held a number of them in both places — but by 2007, there were zero and that “4” seats away from tying the Democrat numbers in the Senate was reduced down to a little over 10% of the body — in only 16 years). Weld himself had been close with Hillary going back to the Watergate days, and Bill Clinton watched with glee as Weld waged war on the MA Republican party and national Conservatives. He offered him the reward of the prominent Ambassadorship to Mexico so he could continue to publicly attack the GOP and Conservatives, but thanks to the work of Jesse Helms, he was slapped down and hard and denied the diplomatic posting. Weld, who just endorsed Romney, was all anyone of Conservative or Republican stripe needed to know about exactly what Romney intends to do while in Washington — finish the work of Weld of splitting the Conservative movement, and shriveling the national GOP to of similar size that it is in Massachusetts.
Both of these characters are enemies of Conservatism and the Republican party. They’ve done nothing for the party, but everything to use the party as a vehicle for their own careers and conveniently throwing it in the trash along with anyone who dared to get in their way. They are dangerous and they must be stopped. I would fully expect to see if either gets the nomination to support the other for VP, because they both share the same agenda — destroy the Republican party.
Well, if you figured out that caucus scheme, can you explain it to me ? ;-)
Both of these characters are enemies of Conservatism and the Republican party. They’ve done nothing for the party, but everything to use the party as a vehicle for their own careers and conveniently throwing it in the trash along with anyone who dared to get in their way. They are dangerous and they must be stopped.
I agree with you. I would only add a postscript: Their agenda is not only to take down the Republican party. I believe the agenda is much greater than that. I also believe that Thompson is as much to be concerned about. And we all know what McLame stands for (or doesn't, as the case may be), as well.
I can vouch for Thompson. In fact, I can say he was the only prominent Republican in TN who was remotely concerned about keeping our GOP numbers, and was successful in keeping both our Senate seats in the GOP column (even last year, at a time that he really didn’t have to do a thing for us. There was nothing in it for him). Contrast that with his former seatmate, Bill Frist, who was AWOL in leadership and was nowhere to be seen during the campaign season.
The sole worry about Thompson tends to stem from the CFR days. What that had to do with was his being a ceaseless fighter against corruption and corrupt politicians. He sincerely believed removing the influence of money in campaigns was the way to go about it. I personally disagreed with the ultimate bill, but I understood the intent. If Thompson had intended to inflict harm on the party, the effects would’ve already been felt. I’ve seen a lot of piss-poor GOP leaders in my state that were content to let things slide (Howard Baker, Lamar! Alexander, Don Sundquist, Frist), but he was the only one who actively and aggressively stepped up when no one else would. One of the reasons why I can support the man in good conscience.
I would say that is my main concern, not only one. I believe he continues to remain a member of that group. I've not heard or seen him say it's because he wants to 'keep tabs' on the enemies. He's never come out and said anything against their agenda. Additionally, when questioned about the North American Union, he feigns ignorance. I find that unbelievable. First of all, it is the CFR which is pushing for it. Secondly, there has long been discussions on this politically, in various forms. Thirdly, there is currently a House bill, sponsored by Virgil Goode, (H.C.R. 487):
"designed to express 'the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada.'"I also saw Thompson questioned on this very matter by a woman, who was shortly thereafter, removed from his presence during a press conference (it was outside, I believe). I find it odd that his feigned ignorance while his feathers seemed more than ruffled at the question being asked and then the woman being forcefully removed. This strikes me as Thompson knowing much more than he is admitting. And this leaves me to believe that his CFR days are not a thing of the past (especially seeing as how he is still a member), or that his membership had anything to do with a pro-American concern.
I find the CFR to be antithetical to all things American and, if I were a candidate, I would never join anything that resembled such an organization to begin with.
Based on these things, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions. I am, however, glad we agree on the other matters, and look forward to further input you may have concerning those things. I believe your heart is in the right place, though we disagree on a particular issue, it appears.
Yes , if anyone knows the true dangers of Romney , it’s Fieldmarshaldj. He’s has more knowledge than anyone regarding the Klinotn / Kerry hybrid known as Mr. Perfect .
The Mittsters should take heed in this info before following the slickster into oblivion ...
That appears to be the case. I wasn't at all keen on Romney before, but after his commentary, it even further settles my own negative opinions.
I just realized you’re talking about something else. I was referring to Campaign Finance Reform, but you were talking about the Council on Foreign Relations, that’s what was throwing me off in your response.
I think where Fred stands is that he’s not an isolationist with respect to foreign policy (business or otherwise), so that may be also where you object. I myself would consider me to be a “globalist” (but this is not in the sense of selling out America, but recognizing we’re part of a vast market. I want the rest of the world to look like and become like us — not the other way around), and I think Fred is the same.
I would say that Fred believes in having foreign investment, but not an abject sell-out to foreign interests. This subject is often rife with demogoguery and perhaps the questions asked of him were loaded ones, or ones he simply couldn’t answer in a timely fashion (after all, most complicated questions can’t be answered in 10-second soundbytes). I sometimes see the Paulbots going after the candidates on this issue, and it is a rank appeal to unworkable isolationism, something absolutely ludicrous to pursue in the 21st century.
As a side issue you brought up, I do think anything related to business with Mexico (for example, say the Trans-Texas Corridor project) should be up for review, and we should apply sanctions if they themselves continue to refuse to stem the tide of illegals across the border.
I would personally hope that Fred would use these organizations (hell, even the UN) to our advantage rather than against it. We could remove ourselves from the UN or have our people disengage from CFR, but it won’t remove any of the underlying issues, which we still have to deal with.
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.