[Josh Painter]

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference

[uptoolate]

I think it is telling that during the 2006 race the discussions on these forums about conservative voters ‘teaching liberal Republicans a lesson’ mostly ended up with a statement saying that the general election is no place to teach your party anything, rather it is in the primaries where that is to be done.

The primaries are where we should be looking for the candidate that meets all or the most of the party’s platform issues. It seems that Ann is just pointing out that we have not found anyone who fits this role. We have have playing in to the medias hand by allowing them to start putting all our eggs in the basket of their choosing.

[DesScorp]

I like Ann, and have read her books, but she’s dead wrong on Fred.

[kellynla]

As a fellow Tennessean(even though FT was actually born in AL) and a fellow alumnus of U. of Memphis(previously know as MEM State); I like Thompson BUT...he has not exactly “swept me off my feet” ...his conservative credentials are suspect, his enthusiasm & “fire in the belly” are lacking and he looks like 30 years of bad road(take a look at FT and you’ll see what one too many Jack Daniels will do to your face!LOL)

I like Hunter & Tancredo BUT neither has hit above a “3” on ANY polls...
so the GOP better get a testicles & spine implant and a true blue conservative who can beat Hillarybeast b4 11/2008 or we can all plan on another four years...if not eight years of the Klintoons...and if that happens, we will all have to hit our knees every night that the country doesn’t entirely go to hell in a hand basket!

I have my asbestos PJ's on, so flame away if you so desire. LOL

I'm off to work...have a good one!

[deport]

She is playing the same game that Dobson is.

---

That’s how she and others make their living as many do on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Badeye]

‘She is playing the same game that Dobson is. If the candidate is not perfect, then run away.’

The difference being a helluva lot more people know who she is than they do Dobson.

At a certain point, you have to let go of 1997 and 1998 and get on with it. And if Ann Coulter wants to ‘blame’ somebody for Clinton not being removed from the Whitehouse, she needs to focus on Trent ‘Spineless’ Lott’s handling of the matter as Senate Majority Leader.

Liberals have Bush Derangement Syndrome, we see it every single day in this and countless other forums.

Conservatives have ‘Clinton Got Away Syndrome’ and its just as counterproductive, if not as prevailent as BDS.

Bill Clinton never won a majority of votes cast folks. It was a unique, almost historical accident furthered by 48 months because of Bob ‘Its My Turn, Damnit!’ Dole.

I can understand those who despise the Clinton administration, I had no use for them - understanding what he was beginning with the infamous 60 Minutes Super Bowl interview in 92.

But to cling to this to the point you rant about a meaningless vote under the circumstances as they existed, against a guy that just might be the best hope for the GOP come 2008, a decade later is counterproductive, and a waste of time.

Further, it doesn’t do a thing to increase the GOP’s chances next year.

Just my opinion.

[Samwise]

And in Thompson's case, her dislike of him is centrally based on his vote in the Clinton impeachment, and in my opinion, she is cutting off her nose to spite her face...

Huh? I thought Fred voted to remove, not on all counts, but he did vote to remove. How many times could he have been removed from office? Only once, right? He was already impeached.

I just checked, he did vote guilty on obstruction. To criticise his Clinton vote is just silly.

I have no problem with anything Fred says here:

http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml

[fish hawk]

This is just my opinion but am wondering how many others are in the same mind: Duncan Hunter is the best running with Conservative values BUT, I am going to vote for who ever wins the Republican nomination, except if it’s Ron Paul, in which case I will not vote this time around. I refuse to vote for a crazy loon.

[TChris]

She is frank and harsh but more often then not...

So, she's frank and harsh, but then she's not?

People who write for a living, or even a serious hobby, should really really get the differences between commonly mistaken homonyms: then and than; to, too and two; there, their and they're.

[COBOL2Java]

To use a casino analogy: Giuliani and Romney are Vegas, Thompson and Huckabee are Carson City (or Reno).

[visualops]

I fail to see how Romney is more conservative than Fred. Fred made a mistake on campaign finance reform, and admitted it and his reasoning a long time ago, not conveniently for this election. As for the impeachment vote he did vote for obstruction. He has a long solid pro-life record plus other strong conservative values. I was very very surprised by her comments the other night in favor of the so-called front runners.

[subterfuge]

I think that she is missing that in her desire to promote a hardline conservative candidate.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. The problem with NOT supporting a "true" conservative is that moderates always get more moderate, imo.

[MEGoody]

In this article she attacks people who dislike the front runners (Guliani and Romney) for not being conservative enough and are gravitating to Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

I admit that neither of these two are flashy and they are certainly not neo cons, but they are often solid and sensible, and do reflect conservative values. I think that she is missing that in her desire to promote a hardline conservative candidate.

Uh. . .what?

[Tall_Texan]

What it really boils down to is who is going to offend conservatives least and yet has a realistic chance of beating Hillary. Reasonable minds can disagree. Giuliani is weak on social issues. Romney may or may not be weak on social issues (depending on how you feel about his time as Mass. governor) and has a disquieting federalist streak. Thompson appears weak on constitutional issues (CFR, impeachment) and may not be a reliable conservative or administrator. The rest of the field doesn’t appear electable. I have my problems with all of them.

My fear is that if Giuliani gets the nomination, some Christians will bolt (over his social liberalism). If Romney gets the nomination, some Christians will bolt (over his Mormonism). If Thompson gets the nomination, I think the Christians will stay in place even if he seems to be McCain Lite at times and I’d never vote for McCain.

The other question is the chick factor. Most women at FR are concerned about issues and most women on the Left are too if they are politically active but there is a great swath of women in the middle who vote because they feel it is their civic duty yet seem to choose as if they are picking their neighbors. They want a nice looking couple who will look good at official functions and often select on appearances. I wonder how they’d react to Mrs. Thompson if they feel she is a “trophy wife” (personally, I have no objection to trophy wives but I’m a guy)? Giuliani is a divorcee with a few ex-wife issues. I think shallow women will be attracted to the Romneys more than the other two and it could be enough to swing a few states.

One you get past the idea that you’ll be choosing a candidate that is beneath our expectations in terms of conservatism, who best can win the general election without destroying the party coalition? I’ve got to say Romney or Thompson but I still have misgivings about both. I just don’t see Giuliani drawing enough people from the middle to offset the social conservatives he is sure to lose for Republicans.

[TLI]

Bitch – Gripe – pizz – moan… GEEZ! Don't yall see what is going on here? OK here is a big fat bucket of ice water...

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

"We can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

"We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."

"I certainly think the free market has failed."

"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector [oil] in the entire economy, that they are being watched."

"What I want to do is take those profits and apply them to alternative energy."

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president" -
- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpeonaed documents.

"This vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President"
-- Hillary Clinton

"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian."
- Hillary Clinton in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1997

"I can't worry about every under capatilized business"
-- Hillary Clinton, testifing before congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care.

"The administration has undone so much of the success of the last eight years in less than eight months"
-- Hillary Clinton on George W. Bush's administration

"I have said that I'm not running and I'm having a great time being pres ? being a first-term senator"
-- Hillary Clinton

"If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle"
-- Hillary Clinton



THAT IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST. A FULL BLOWN COMMUNIST THAT IS THE CENTER OF HER OWN LITTLE WORLD!

Ok, is everybody awake now?

She has the press and most of the stupid people in the U.S. behind her.

Here is what she will bring to this nation. Future dem voters. We all know who will be courting them, the ones FOR "immigration reform." Just where was RUDITH on the immigration reform issue? Well, he sees nothing wrong with this...


More future democrats...


Smiling L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, proud of his amigos




Now, here is a little something from just today... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/republican_ideology

Rasmussen Reports’ Thursday, October 11, 2007

During Fred Thompson’s first month as a formal candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Republican voters continue to see him as the most conservative candidate in the field. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters now see the former Tennessee Senator as politically conservative. That’s up from 48% a month ago.

Perceptions of Mitt Romney have moved in the opposite direction. Thirty-six percent (36%) now see him as politically conservative. That’s down from 42% a month ago and little changed from two months ago.

Just 30% of Republican voters see John McCain as politically conservative, down from 33% a month ago. Twenty-six percent (26%) hold that view of Giuliani, little changed over the past month.

Looked at from the other perspective, 68% see Giuliani as moderate or liberal while 56% of Republicans say the same of McCain. Romney is viewed as moderate or liberal by 42% of GOP voters and 35% say the same about Thompson.

So, is to becoming very clear where the numbers are going to go, FDT. Also, it is very clear why MSM is proclaiming Rudith the Republican leader! He is hillary light and I would not put it past that cross-dressing, gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-2nd Amendment flip flopper to hop the fence and hand the election to hillary in 2012.

Fred can buy us enough time (2 terms) to get a little concrete around the constitution in the form of SC appointments to prevent the destruction of the Republic.

Plus, if we get the right VP pick in the game (Duncan) he could be a shoe-in for 2016 - 2024.

BUT the cat-fighting here needs to STOP. This thing is already shaping up to Fred and "Rudith." The numbers in several areas prove that, Also, I believe we can have a consisus of opinion that Rudi is a lying trash heap that will turn on his campaign "platform" like a Porch on a dime. Juan McCain? NO. He will bring us 38 million new voters in the blink of an eye. Problem is, they will vote for the socialists/communists, which is all they know being from mexico and all. Mitt? Everybody is catching on to him as well, "Thirty-six percent (36%) now see him as politically conservative. That’s down from 42% a month ago and little changed from two months ago. That is NOT going to beat hillary.

We ALL pushed in the same direction when the MSM was talking up "comprehensive immigration reform" and talk radio came alive with the very commentary we posted right here. We can do that very thing again as Free Republic has become such a powerhouse that even MSM can not deny it's influence. But what are visitors to the site seeing now? The continued existence of this nation is in the balance.

Political discussion is great, heck look where I am, right in the middle, but folks better start discussing who should be appointed to what cabinet post to put together a package Fred can present to the voters. Not pushing for snowballs.

So, time to come to Jesus. Will it be this?





Or this?

[nicmarlo]

Who would you like LEAST in the Whitehouse? Hillary or Fred?

I would rather have neither a SOCIALIST nor a GLOBALIST in the White House.

That means, BOTH Shillary AND CFRed (Council on Foreign Relations Member) are automatically DISQUALIFIED from ANY vote from me.

[Brucifer]

I’m fed up with Rudy, Anne, Jorge, Sleepy Fred, and all the rest. If I can’t vote for Liberty Valance then I’m staying home next year.

Does Liberty Valance know anything about being president? No. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. But at the end of the day he knows his single malts and has great taste in music. That’s more than I’ve ever gotten from anybody else I’ve ever voted for. (Oh, and I get to be the ambassador to Jamaica or some other really cool place to scuba dive and party. You folks can all come visit, of course.)