Posted on 07/10/2007 9:06:01 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
I think I have a good idea already, thanks.
No use talking to the zealots.
Are you saying I'm a zealot?
I appreciate your posting this. I WANT to know the candidates and what they stand for. If he’s not the one, then we need to assess who would be the best.
In a way I was. I was in the first grade in the fall of '64 and we had a presidential election in our class. I voted for Goldwater and he won the vote in our class. That made me even more disgruntled and shocked when LBJ won the big election.
And given the likely Democrat opponents, I agree with you that the good will look even better and the electability of our guy will take center stage. But I do wish that my more obscure ideal candidate could get more of a hearing before the shadow of electability silences the discourse.
Hence the reason not to nominate Giuliani, who, being a liberal, does not appeal to conservatives.
“The WH may by God may not become RAT infested like it was in the 90’s; but Duncan wont have a personal role in that outcome. I bet a winning lotto ticket on it.”
Did I miss something? I don’t think Duncan Hunter could win a national election either, despite the fact that I like him and would vote for him. But I am a Fred supporter - for previously stated reasons.
Who knows, though, Duncan might cast that last hanging chad!
I agree that the candidate who raises the most cash is probably not necessarily the type of candidate we might, all other things being equal, actually prefer. Nevertheless, I have to disagree fundamentally. Candidates who raise the most money today are actually less beholden to special interests (compared to in the past) simply because they cannot raise much from any one source. In fact, it is actually quite impressive that GWB was able to raise so much from so many people (the GOP has been able to do the same in the past). He garnered over a million contributors (that may be overstating, but I know it was in the many hundreds of thousands), and the average donation was less than $100 if I am not mistaken. He was able to eschew the matching funds from the government and thus had no limits on media buys and advertising at any point in the campaign. Republican candidates really need that badly since they have no media friends. That is as strong a case for grassroots support as you can make. Romney and Guiliani are doing really well at this so far. It remains to be seen if Thompson can do the same. Regardless, while the current system blunts to a certain extent the influence of special interests, it leaves the candidate with the herculean task of being in constant money-raising mode - flying around to different events all the time at $1000 a plate dinners. And the effect on the mode and tenor of the campaign is pronounced because candidates have to be extremely careful how they say things to one group or another because they not only are faced with the prospect of losing a few votes, they are faced with the threat of missing out on a whole lot of contributions.
You can make the argument that in the past candidates would be more beholden to special interests because there was no limit on contributions from any one contributor. In an effort to decrease big money influence, Congress over the years has passed restrictions on campaign finance. I think they should not have done that but merely pushed for openness: make candidates declare who they got their money from and how much. Then the public can decide for themselves whether they trust the candidate and the benefactor supporting him.
And if you believe that Fred is different, and that he isn’t beholden to special interests, I respectfully disagree.
Every candidate is. If you were a candidate, you would be too. What we want to know is, who is it and how much influence, and can we live with it.
The only place we have a chance to change things is, IMO, in the primaries.
The primaries must be changed structurally first. There are too many, too tightly compressed, that if you don't have a ton of cash you will not be relevant because you won't be able to get your message out simultaneously in NH, SC, FL, AZ, NY, etc. All these states have moved their primaries up to be more relevant as a state in determining the nominee, and it has raised the stakes on raising alot of money for the campaign.
BTW, if Hunter was the nominee, I believe the GOP and the Republican voters would get behind him with the money he’d need.
Oh, I think if he were the nominee, he could count on alot of support, no doubt. But if you remember, Bob Dole was the nominee but spent all his cash getting the nomination locked up. He had it locked up by late February or late March, I can't remember, but was basically unable to buy any advertising. He had to wait until mid-summer, I think, before federal matching funds were released to get back on the air. In the meantime, the DNC and Bill Clinton absolutley ripped him a new one with ad after ad after ad (along with getting very favorable coverage for themselves from the MSM) and he was toast by June. He actually was leading Clinton in some polls in December, January, if I remember correctly, but was 20-25% down by June. So, you can opine about how great it would be if a candidate did not need to show fundraising prowess, but that is one of my absolute primary benchmarks a candidate needs to show me before I will support him. Not the only one, mind you, but a very significant one.
I certainly respect your position. My criticism is for those people who don’t think that it is even good to fight for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion in addition to overturning Roe v. Wade. However, I would disagree with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If unborn children are found to be persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. Then a state could not allow them to be killed without violating the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. People make the point that murder is not prohibited by the 14th Amendment. However, if a state chose to allow a class of people to be killed, I can guarentee that successfull claims would be brought under both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
As soon as Hunter announced, the left indeed went after him. You can still buy “Anti-Hunter buttons”. There were any number of attacks and hit pieces which attempted to create scandal where there was none. I suppose the left saw that the GOP was busy with the popularity contest and slacked off for the present. It would not be in their best interests to attack Hunter because that would put him in the spotlight. Why try to bury the GOP, when the GOP is burying itself in regard to Hunter? I have been on a few sites that have these side by side comparisons. A comparative between the two candidates usually finds me having to compare what Fred has said to what Hunter has done. Another problem for example is you can’t compare Military records, Fred doesn’t have one. You can’t compare their careers as lobbyists, Hunter doesn’t have one. To me, although you may have different key issues, but mine were National Security, securing our borders, and since we are at war I thought about who would make the best CiC. The possibility of the Iranian nutjob getting nuclear arms also weighed heavily in my decision. Obviously, I want someone leading this country that will see that he does not get them. Abortion, also a really big issue and I looked at who was shooting straight and who I thought might try to be “nuanced” on the issue. To me, there is no middle ground, no room for compromise, it either is an inherent evil, or it isn’t. It is either a human life or it isn’t. You either want to see it eradicated completely, or you don’t. There have been some unintended and rather heated comparatives on many of the threads to date, and likely there will be more. :) I have seen more than a few posts here that brought up issues about Hunter and a few of those were posted by Hunter supporters. I don’t think most Hunter supporters take it as an attack, most of us like it. IS this man going to really be the best leader for our country? That’s what this process is all about. Whichever candidate you choose, I can respect your choice because at the very least, you care enough about your country to ask the questions and seek a comparative. If someone takes it on, maybe they should just do the pro’s of each candidate as a listing of con’s will be seen as an attack by one side. It is even my understanding that one side has contacted campaign headquarters of the other and complained of the attacks. If so the pathos and dramatics have reached critical mass. If any Hunter supporter contacts any other campaign whining about being attacked, that person can expect a swift excoriation and standard-issue literal bloodletting from me. I wish you the best in finding a candidate you can support and if you need any help, Freepmail me anytime.
I see it often said around here that Thompson should pick Hunter as VP.
Do you think that’s likely considering Hunter is a fair-trade, anti-Chicom hardliner while Thompson isn’t? Don’t you think Hunter would frighten off big money contributors?
I think a Thompson/Hunter ticket is not likely because of a couple of things. First, IF Thompson wins the nomination, most (non-dyed-in-the-wool) folks that lean conservative will consider the top of the ticket acceptably conservative. There would be no need for another (possibly) more conservative VP. Second, it’s not real clear what Hunter would deliver in terms of the general. His home state? Doubtful.
I believe that the ticket, should Thomspon win will be Thompson/Romney or Thompson Ruby.
Thanks for the ping.
I think Thompson is a lot like President Bush, but tougher, and the tougher part, I like, but I’m looking for someone MORE conservative than Bush (and tougher), which is why I’m supporting DUNCAN HUNTER!
Having said that, though, I do like Thompson more than Rudy McRomney.
“..but, in the interests of providing another point-of-view on an emerging candidate, I feel honesty — and prudence — requires a close examination of voting patterns and records so, as in the Who song of years ago, “We Won’t be Fooled Again.”
I agree. Let’s get out all the weaknesses, as well as strengths, on the table before the primaries.
>>isn’t sure that life begins at conception<<
You keep bringing back 1994 statements, which is OK, but don’t state them as if they were current. Your use of the present tense here and and in other cases is, to put it politely, misleading.
So your theory is that he has always been pro-choice, but he voted 100% against his beliefs. Seems unlikely to me. Plus his present stated position is that Rowe v Wade should be overturned.
Thanks again for the ping, Mike. Thanks for posting the article, Dick.
Finally having read it and the 1st 50 posts, I created columns listing those “for” Fred, those “against” Fred, those “neutral”, those “informing about author” and those “for Duncan Hunter”.
I’m sure I’ll read more. Those “for” Fred are making the more rational argument thus far. It certainly is an interesting, informative, educational, and outstanding online discussion.
Thanks to all contributors.
I’ll bet you’re right.
For the next 50 posts (51-100) I added a “sidebar” column. The “for” Fred are still presenting the better argument.
Thanks to all.
With Duncan Hunter you don’t have to wait and see anything. It is very clear where he stands. I don’t think this cat and mouse game of Fred Thompson’s is worth my time. I know his type, and I’m not impressed. If he wants to be president, he should come right out and say so, instead of beating around the bush. I’m not taking the bait. Duncan Hunter is my candidate.
LOL! Come on! The rules are ignored and 'stretched' constantly by both sides. Less beholden?? You're joking, right??
...GWB was able to raise so much from so many people...
It appeared that way, because the Dems had so many max donations, but both sides (as usual) were 'skirting' the rules.
Every candidate is. If you were a candidate, you would be too.
You've just conceded the argument.
The primaries must be changed structurally first.
Not if EVERYONE VOTES FOR HUNTER!!
That will change it, now won't it! ;^)
Bob Dole was the nominee but spent all his cash getting the nomination locked up. He had it locked up by late February or late March, I can't remember, but was basically unable to buy any advertising.
Which only confirms my statement that it's not about the best, it's about the money.
So, you can opine about how great it would be if a candidate did not need to show fundraising prowess, but that is one of my absolute primary benchmarks a candidate needs to show me before I will support him. Not the only one, mind you, but a very significant one.
Yes, we agree. We're all f#@ked by the system, and the system is almost impossible to change.
Some dream for what may be.
Others settle for .... whatever.
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.