Both Hunter and Tancredo have given unwavering, decisive answers. Thompson has been playing hard-to-get. I understand the game. And I am focused on principles that will resonate with passionate voters. A candidacy and electorate focused on fear of losing, not principled leadership, may run in the wrong direction, or fall prey to compromised principles.
Don’t take this personally nor let it be said of you...in any political or business or moral context, to coin a phrase, mere fear would let a lousy leader lead lemmings astray.
It’s not too soon to start getting the word out about the best candidates, dark horses though they may be.
Focus on principles. Spread the word.
Fred Thompson’s globalist pedigree
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55776
And if you think you can have politics without compromised principles, you're crazy. I can't vote for any Democat or Republican without compromising principles.
I compromised in order to vote for the current occupant of the White House in 04 (I didn't vote for him in 00). I don't regret the decision, even though he's a complete nimrod. Because it obviously came down to GW or Kerry, and to me that was an easy choice. But had I and others not compromised, we'd have Prez Kerry now, and that would have been worse.
Tancredo et al are merely a waste of time. In the general, you'll compromise like the rest of us, or sit it out.
“Spread the word.”
I agree, but it is difficult at best when many have already passionately determined the winner [and loosers] this early in the game.
Thanks for the link. I read it, and see no difference between Thompson and Bush. Just like with the election of Calderone and Harper, perhaps the ‘powers that be’ are again determined to make certain that another pro-NAU candidate is elected for the sake of their globalist agenda.
Speaking of compromised principles, I wonder, if Bush were able to run again, against Hillary, how many Fred supporters would vote AGAIN for Bush? Might make for an interesting and telling Freeper Poll.