Posted on 01/11/2008 5:07:32 AM PST by pookie18
Being for limited government and being an isolationist is two different things. Other candidates supporters are a little more mature than that. Staying in the bottom tier this long and then winning virtually every call in poll reveals what is going on.
I didn’t mean that the other candidates said “blow them up”. I meant that a lot of people here thought blowing them up would have been just great, and it was my impression watching the focus group that if one of our candidates had said “nuke iran”, they would have applauded.
My angst was that in that particular answer, Paul was pretty much correct, and the focus group essentially rejected him out-of-hand, I believe because he wasn’t sounding like he would blow them up.
WooHoo!! Fred was endorsed by Human Events! That is HUGH for conservatives!
I have to disagree. Paul already had his answer ready to rebuke the other candidates for being to Hawkish. Only problem was they all agreed that the commander of the ship was right to show restraint. When he started answering the question Brit Hume stopped him and reminded him that the other candidates were in agreement with him. He then gave that lamea$$ excuse that he could not hear a thing he was saying. He came off looking like a fool and justifiably so.
I don't think it's too late. It's just in time for delegate rich Super Tuesday.
Time for you to roll out the "victim" card now. So many of your posts state how scary it is here at FR to be anything other than a FRed supporter. Strange that you post so much of this, if it really is so scary here.
What happened to my country?
That’s what the Foxnews Focus Group was saying. It was kinda wierd..the non-Fred supporters agreeded (pretty much) that he was the best of last nights debate..but were going on about it being “too little too late”.
To tell you the truth, I thought he’s always been like this, just folks are finally taking notice. And Too Late...damn, it’s only the 4th state to vote...
“scary” is not a word I would use to describe posting here.
I’ve never been frightened to post what I think. Therefore, your claim about me being scared, and the implication that my posting things is “strange”, is simply wrong.
I suppose people who are afraid of what other people think might be scared.
I’m talking about the part of the answer they played when they were reviewing the focus group, to show how the focus group responded. IT was not the section you rightly pan in your post.
I didn’t think I was being subtle.
Actually, I don’t want Fred to go home either, it was part of the tone of the post.
I’m not a fan of analogies to fictional characters.
I remember a couple years back I think when a freeper used the Nicholson character from “A few good men”, quoting what is actually a pretty good speech about honor and those who stand the front lines for us.
I noted that the problem with that was the character was about to be arrested and put up for courtmarshall for contributing to the death of a soldier, so it wasn’t really the analogy he was looking for.
Last night, Fred Thompson wasn’t “Roy Hobb-ish”. He was Presidential. He was the Fred Thompson some of us had hoped for when we encouraged him to run. Now the question is can he only do that occasionally, or does he have it in him to do it for months on end, thus demonstrating that he can do it for 4 years as President.
It is reasonable to ask that question. President is the most demanding job in the world, and his 8 years as Senator, and his years outside of government, do not answer that question.
I agree with Fred that campaigns are too long, but I think September was a good time to start hard, not December, especially when your previous life has left an impression that you are not hard-charging and continuously focused.
Nobody doubts that Rudy would show up for work day and night for 4 years.
We can’t watch streaming video here, and outside of the IZ and Victory, there is no widely available FOXnews - so I wasn’t able to see the debate.
Even those who’ve belittled his efforts since announcing admitted he did terrifically last night. In fact, from what I read, he’s won the last 4 debates handily - or at least looked the most presidential.
After the Sunday debate I donated another $250, and I am going to donate more today!
Perhaps there is a chance SC can make him a contender again - he’s the only conservative left invited to the debates.
What makes you say that? It's quite possible that Human Events is just one endorsement that he may get today. I've seen reports that the 'big' endorsement is scheduled for release at noon EST.
Charles, I do like you and feel that you may be Mitt's best poster here. You are articulate, knowledgeable and a very decent person. What has bugged me is when you imply you're for Fred or that you're neutral (swiss ninja?). It seems to me that you aren't and I worry that you are so good you will influence undecided's here.
In order to support my claim (and I didn't do a lot of research but I know it's there), here's just one example of what I "claimed" about your "victimology" ...
Posted to restornu and TheLion at post #232 on 12/26/2007 here was this:
You should tread lightly, and follow the forum rules to the letter. Otherwise, I’ll have a lot fewer friends here to help defend Romney against false accusations. Some who were not so careful are not with us now, and longevity is not a protection.
I know that this does not say 'scary' exactly but this and many other posts IIRC infer exactly that.
I will stop posting to you now though since I feel you do not appreciate it. And I fully expect to hear displeasure from restornu and TheLion. Sorry for that.
A comment I read somewhere (read so much about FRed today that I can’t recall where I read it), but I could be wrong...hopefully...
I'm not being disengenous, at least it's not my intent, I really wouldn't mind Thompson. In fact, what things I say against Fred Thompson are usually in reaction to attacks against similar qualities in Romney, simply to point out the double-standard people are applying.
In the specific example you gave, I thought some of the comments from my side were close to violating the rules -- and their comments were being pinged to Jim Robinson, obviously to see if he thought they should be banned.
It wasn't about being scared, it was a reminder to people who agreed with me that they should stick to the facts, and not stoop to the level of personal insults, because personal insults are against the rules and people will be banned for it.
In fact, in the post you reference, after the quote you provide, I said: "This shouldn’t be a problem, while it’s easy to lapse into unkind responses, it is actually better for argument to keep to the facts."
If I were going to apply a word to the situation for non-Fred supporters, I would have used the word "dangerous", not "scary".
As an example of the danger of being a Romney supporter, I went to a thread about a really good local conservative who is running for Virginia Senate, and made a comment about how great he was, and corrected a misconception from another poster.
One of my Fred antagonists came into the thread and stirred up trouble based on my support for Romney, suggesting that the guy wasn't conservative, or that he was supporting Romney, or that he should kick me off his campaign because I was trying to sabatoge it, or that the guy must not be electable and I was trying to push him to get Mark Warner elected.
So my support for Romney, which in MY opinion is based on facts and reason, and is given with a full knowledge of the situation, and in accord with my conservative principles, actually threatens a good conservative running in a race simply because I know him and like him.
THAT is what I consider dangerous.
Here is a link to that conversation in that thread, you might find it interesting.
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.