Posted on 09/06/2007 6:57:57 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
BMP for #57 again...great info
It's nothing nefarious, it's just that the idea is patently ridiculous.
Up until March, Thompson wasn't even considering running. So how can he be the "CFR stooge" if he wasn't even part of the plan? Also, Thompson has a solid record on belief that the federal government should stay out of state, local, and individual matters -- how does that in any way match up with the idea that he's a "one worlder" who's going to sell out the USA to Soros and his ilk?
As for "unwilling to address it", it's because the whole thing is silly and pointless. Putting aside the fundamental wackiness that you have to accept to even believe such a thing, what you've essentially posited is to make Thompson supporters prove a negative, which is as intellectually honest as asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"
For starters, check out his voting record (links already posted) on immigration issues. Not too impressive for a senator from a fairly conservative state.
The idea that it is OK to repeatedly trash Mitt Romney over his religion but not question Fred Thompson over his membership in a patently political organization with an agenda like the CFR is what bothers me.
The idea that conservatives roll over and accept the MSM assessment that solid conservatives like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo just can't win bothers me even more.
I may end up voting for Fred or even enthusiastically supporting him, but I want to see him work for and earn the nomination and not see it handed to him by acclaimation.
ellery did a pretty good job debunking that upthread. I suggest you read it befiore continuing to make your self look foolish. Strike one.
The idea that it is OK to repeatedly trash Mitt Romney over his religion
Here comes the "Mormon vitcim card". I have never trashed Romney for his religion, there are plenty of political reasons I disklike him for, though. Strike two.
but not question Fred Thompson over his membership in a patently political organization with an agenda like the CFR is what bothers me
But the CFR isn't a "patently political organization". It's a debating society that has members from all stripes. For every position paper they publish, there's a contrary paper suggesting the opposite. It's nothing more than a bogeyman. Also, see again the post you replied to -- it doesn't make sense. Foul tip.
The idea that conservatives roll over and accept the MSM assessment that solid conservatives like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo just can't win bothers me even more. I may end up voting for Fred or even enthusiastically supporting him, but I want to see him work for and earn the nomination and not see it handed to him by acclaimation.
Do you sense the irony here? Hunter and Tancredo have no chance not because of any "MSM assessment", but because history, both general and personal, is against them. House members do not win primaries. Why? Because voters don't want to take the risk of running someone who has never even won a statewide contest. Additionally, neither of these men spent any part of their careers building the sort of national recognition and network it takes to win a primary, let alone the general election. You don't just wake up one morning and decide to run for President without that.
Meanwhile, you parrot the MSM line that Thompson is somehow not working hard. He is working hard -- he's been spending the last 5+ months getting ready, putting a 50-state team together, and getting himself in shape physically and professionally for the run. If he's making it look easy, that's what the good ones do.
Strike three.
It’s all in the Congressional Record, even if the facts threaten your image of him.
I’m supporting Tancredo financially and am working for him here in FL. He has a 97% rating with the American Conservative Union. But I like Hunter also. I think on the core conservative issues - strong national defense, smaller government with less taxation, pro-Second Amendment, secure national borders, etc. - Tancredo and Hunter are walking in locked step. It’s sort of like the two finalists in the Miss America contest - they’re BOTH beautiful but you still have to choose one!
In my case, with years of coaching high school debate, I give the extra points to Duncan Hunter in terms of delivery, flair, persuasion, body language, clarity, cadence, voice, poise, emphasis, over Mr. Tancredo. It is not a substantive difference, such as voting record, just in style. I think Duncan Hunter could make mince meat of Hilary Clinton on a one one one debate. No sweat. Millions upon millions of American men who have been psychologically disenfranchised and, well, over the years, lost their balls to American Women and feminism, I think PSYCHOLOGICALLY get behind Hunter over that bitch bar none. In that respect, I think Fred Thompson could also pull that off.
I agree with you about Hunter v. Hillary. Another thing that’s very impressive about his background is that not only is he a retired marine but his son is a marine on combat duty in the Middle East. That alone convinces me that he’s totally sincere about his commitment to winning the war in Iraq and the general war against terrorism. I like Tancredo because he was a pioneer on the illegal invasion catastrophe. Ever since he went to the Colorado state legislature in 1976 he’s been a stalwart conservative and very consistent. In fact, before the issue became national Tom was defending American sovereignty and fighting to protect our borders against illegals. He was very prophetic and ahead of his time on the issue. By the way, Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a great book (”The War Against Boys”) that details the consistent effort to feminize boys on the part of schools, the media, the feminazis, and others. Regards,
“Amen! “They” say he doesn’t stand a chance, but Tancredo’s still my guy.”
Me too... I’m a bit uneasy, as part of me wants to vote for Fred just to keep Giuliani from getting the nomination. But Tancredo is the only candidate who consistently stands for the things I believe in.
No good.
I see Thompson as a Johnny come lately when it comes to the violent invasion of America.
We can do better.
A very impressve and helpful post. Thank You!
You’re very welcome — I’m glad it was helpful!
Americans for Better Immigrations is a George Soros Shadow Party organization. Soros and his scumbag clan have donated millions of dollars to pro-immigration groups. Who gives a *beep* what they have to say.
That's what people said about the GOP nominee who would challenge Bill Clinton for his second term.
The reality is that the GOP candidate must be able to attract votes in numbers sufficient to overcome voter fraud, Chinese money, a lying, biased media, electorate ignorance and apathy, and oh, did I mention voter fraud?
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.