Posted on 07/13/2007 7:48:24 AM PDT by pissant
I know you try very hard with DH, and he’s an excellent candidate. I sure wish he’d get more exposure, I’d love to see him in the WH.
This could be an opportunity for Fred to explain “why” he supported McCain Feingold, he was a lobbyist, he knew how the game was played.
That and I’ve been reading reports all over FR over the last 5 months about how “Wvangelicals love Rudy” and there is no way Rudy is to the Right of Fred on Abortion yet Evangelicals support rudy over Fred?
non operating system disk, operating system not found...
You may be right. The way I look at it is this: If it stands like it is today, Fred’s initial blanket denial and his follow-up in Powerline will make this a non issue. If the Times comes up with real proof of REAL involvement, not periphery stuff, then he’s toast.
I'm an anti-abortion voter, but am I troubled by this? Nope. Even I worked for Planned Parenthood in 1975 as a volunteer, as a 19 year old, I rationalized that preventing pregnancies prevented abortions. That was long before PP became strongly identified with the pro-abort positions it has today.
What's the alternative? McCain is going down in flames, Giuliani is out of the question, and Mitt's recent conversion to being against abortion stacks up less favorably than Fred's zero rating from NARAL and the other baby-killer organizations.
Oh, yes, I suppose there's Duncan Hunter, but if he makes it from 1 or 2 percent in the polls, to say, 10 percent by the time the NY primary is here, sure, why not?
We are working on it..
No. Duncan Hunter will be our next president but the past is the past. What has FT done, say over to last 10 years to support or vote against abortion? That’s what counts IMO.
The number of evangelicals that would support Rudy could fit in a phonebooth.
The dems will have a field day if Fred wins the nomination. All his years of lobbying are filled with juicy attack points. For example the attempt to shield asbestos companies from litigation, or this issue.
The Dem/media plan will be to stay on the attack for the whole presidential election against Thompson with one shady lobbying story after another. Forcing the Thompson campaign onto the defensive for the campaign.
This ground swell of support is unprecedented and it is hard for both Thompson’s camp as well as his potential competitors to deal with.
As far as did he or didn’t he support abortion, it is clear where he stands now and that position is built over many years of solid proof. I concur with someone who put forth that before he was a Senator he may never have had any thoughts on the subject. I know I did not early on, mainly because such things did not go on in my crowd or if it did it was quickly and quietly done. When I became politically active, I “formalized” my position as pro life.
Reagan was about the same way. His stance grew.
For what it is worth, I have read more on Hunter and like him. I wish he would set the world on fire. Maybe he can in the end, but I feel comfortable that except for a couple of folks, we have a good field going into the primaries.
It’s only a non starter if this is where it ends. You can’t issue blanket denials then be proven wrong. But my guess is it will more than likely fade away. For today, its still a hot story in the blogosphere.
I’m sure they would attempt it. Any GOP candidate will be subject to the dems mining operations. But what we can’t have is an untruthful candidate.
Just don’t tape record anything...
(maybe we can get some pointers from Sandy Burger)
Yes, those hearings.
As it stands NOW, well it is going to get interesting over the next few months.
I think we also need to keep in mind that FDT is being extremely careful in how he responds to everything. Some responses may be able to be construed as “campaign” oriented. If that happens, a large chunk of the $$ he has raised as “testing the waters” would need to be forfeited (returned?) under orders by the FEC.
Both national parties would like to see this happen.
It’s entertaining to see how many “FReepers” don’t want the Republicans to have a candidate. It would prevent them from expressing the cynicism and apathy that comprises their entire political DNA. If you are even mildly acting like you don’t want a Republican to win the WH in 08, then you are supporting a leftist Democrat in my book.
I think EPU was being funny.
It will be interesting to see if the RNC plays favorites this time out.
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.