Posted on 03/26/2007 9:49:21 AM PDT by RepublicanPatriot
Yes, Thompson has portrayed strong executive leadership in his acting roles, but what reason do we have to believe that he will exhibit the same qualities in real life? Unlike Reagan, to whom he sometimes is compared, Thompson has never led a major labor organization, never served as governor, and never been considered one of the leaders of the conservative movement in this country.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You don't decide who is or isn't a conservative, jerky.
"It is surprising that he admits that Giuliani is NOT a principled conservative."
Usually they try to spin and yell that he reaslly is a conservative, and then top it off with the "who are you to say who is a conservative and who isn't?" (even though THEY just did the same thing by declaring rudy a conservative)
Juvenile attempt at an insult,yes?
Yes, I actually do. For instance, when I read your posts defending Rudy as a conservative it is easy to see what is left to a conservative "jerky" when he abandons his conservatism.
and you seem a bit testy : )
You are being Orwellian. Words have meaning. If Rudy's words don't mean what they actually mean, he ain't a strict constructionist as he claims.
This is why I adopted the "no compromise" approach to candidates. I can't affect what happens because of the unwashed masses, but I can drift toward a clear conscience.
I take every opportunity to "raz the reps" hoping that they will begin to present someone worth a vote. The people need to restore our Republic. We can't do this with the garbage that runs for office. The nomination process, therefore, needs to be controlled by the People rather than congresscritters. Only then can the solution take shape.
Good catch. The Giuliani pushers fear Fred Thompson, because they know he can take the "but he can win" away from Giuliani.
No, you actually don't. My choice for President is Fred Thompson. I have voted for George Bush, Saxby Chambliss, Mac Collins, Newt Gingrich and Alan Keyes in general elections and primaries, and if Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination I will vote for him. I won't waste my vote voting third party, because conservatives don't let Democrats win elections. They vote Republican.
My posts point out the truth about Rudy. He is overwhelmingly conservative in most areas and far more conservative than any Democrat in the field.
I'm not being Orwellian; you're being a political neophyte.
No, I'm being honest, and you are not. Words have meaning.
And now you're being obtuse. "A fine candidate" means exactly that. It's faint praise.
He didn't say "she's a great justice," "I agree with her rulings," "I agree with her approach to interpreting the Constitution," or anything else that might be construed as an endorsement. "A fine candidate" here means someone who is well-qualified. And she was well-qualified...Phil Gramm and Strom Thurmond voted for her.
Words do have meaning. You're just having a hard time understanding the meaning of these particular words.
Take a minute to contemplate the absurdity of what you just said. I am being obtuse for not accepting that saying someone is a "fine candidate" doesn't mean they are a fine candidate.
Later. I don't deal with people who accept the wholesale destruction of the meaning of words. That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with politics nowadays - words have no core meaning, and politicans have no core values, so they change the meaning of words to suit whatever agenda they seek to pursue below the surface.
If we cannot evaluate a candidate from what they say, using the dictionary meaning of words, a candidate can therefore say anything and it has no meaning. That is the path of tyranny.
You aren't reading with anything resembling the slightest amount of comprehension.
Nothing I've said is absurd. If you can't comprehend that the phrase "a fine candidate" can be both an accurate assessment of a candidate's credentials and faint praise simultaneously, you have no business trying to understand politics.
Nothing I've said is Orwellian in the least. There is no destruction of words here, and you are being either obtuse or disingenuous. Which is it?
I understand politics just fine. And you are a prime example of what is wrong with them nowadays - that words have no meaning.
There's plenty of straightforward meaning in the phrase "a fine candidate" as used by Hizzoner, none of which is Orwellian.
You're just having comprehension problems.
If you ask politely rather than demand, I will.
Your statement speaks for itself you like to degrade Reagan!
I have no problem nominating a candidate who begrudgingly accepts the mantle of leadership over a candidate who openly lusts after power...one who has been in public office his entire life.
We should be skeptical of all candidates. It always comes down to selecting the candidate who is least likely to damage our Constitution and country. Getting all a twitter about this candidate or that candidate seems kind of silly, IMO.
I go for the one in Red October.
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.