Posted on 11/12/2007 5:29:38 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
Romney is electable, Thompson is not. You should support Hunter.
(Hey, I figure everybody else gets to say things, why not me?)
Yeah. Sucks doesn’t it.
Place marker.
“The consistent one.”
“For clarification that’s a vote for Hunter.”
It didn’t need clarification. There is only one consistent conservative. AND of course, my vote is for Hunter.
WOW. That’s pretty impressive. Send that to the RNC.
That’s a misleading mischaracterization of a perfectly valid position on an important issue.
It would be nice I guess if the President was a constitutioanl lawyer so he didn’t need to consult others. No, in fact it wouldn’t. I want a leader as president. That’s what advisors are for. I don’t expect the President to draw up the battle plans, I don’t expect him to write the legislation, and I don’t expect him to make his own legal rulings.
He lets conservatives post here, regardless of the candidate they choose to support.
Fred’s my second choice, but also the only candidate I’ve donated money to.
My first choice doesn’t seem to need money, as he has his own. :-)
Personally I’m not so sure the so called “front runners” are as electable as we’re supposed to believe. It’s pretty clear that voters on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with the same old crap.
In a way I think that’s part of what’s driving this Paul thing. He’s a little too different for me so I’m sticking with the right kind of different and going with Hunter. I just don’t see the democrats being able to defend against him.
That cabinet would be a disaster.
Sorry, but that is how I and many other Conservatives would feel. In the end, even if we voted for Romney, and he gets in, we will still have Romney wearing the same pants Hillary wears. Romney would still be pro-choice if he thought he could win that way. Rudy decided to run as a pro-choice Republican. Just doesn't sound right does it?
I will still hitch my wagon to Fred Thompson's star and would hope you would all join in on the victory.
How so? President Lincoln had his rivals and enemies (including democrats) in his cabinet. As a matter of fact, his second Vice President (Andrew Johnson, who became President at his death) was a democrat. BTW, Lincoln did NOT run as a republican for his second term, but as the "Union Party" candidate.
They're really not, they're what the status quo has degenerated into.
Hillary is too establishment(for starters), Obama is a lightweight in all facets, Edwards is a snake-oil salesman.
Rudy is a democrat in republican clothing, Fred is... is... uh... I have no idea. But I'm disappointed in how Waxman ate him for lunch during the Chinagate investigation. Mitt is too malleable in my view. McCain, thank you for your service John, is unlikeable.
Hunter is solid as far as I can tell, on taxes, security, life, guns, and gets a high rating from small business which is paramount for me being that it's my livelihood.
More people should know about him!
Henry Waxman is in the House and Fred Thompson was in the Senate. Are you sure you have your facts straight on this one?
I forget who it was, but I know Fred got bullied out of investigating Clinton. Not very heavy with backbone from what I remember.
My uncle is a small business conservative democrat supporting Hunter.
Too many egos. They would never play well together. Whoever wins the office is better off bringing aboard people who are team players. People they can trust and rely on to carry out the president’s agenda. Some names might be all right but for the most part they all have political ambitions. You would see much undermining of policy and leaking to the press. Find a bunch of good worker bees. This list has too many queen bees. Or in a more political uncorrect way, too many chiefs and not enough indians.
A quick google and scan of an article showed it was Levin and Torricelli, not Waxman, thanks for the correct.
That’s really not fair of you - I remember the context of what Romney said - he will consult with his lawyers to determine the LEGALITY of whether he will FIRST need to consult with Congress before attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
*THINK!* Do you really want a president to just invade or attack another country UNILATERALLY, with all the casualties and military counter-attacks (especially by sleeper cells already in the US) that entails; or, do you want Congress to be consulted? Sure, the final decision eventually rests with the president, but shouldn’t Congress be in the decision-making process of such a serious and momentous action?
Of course, this is a silly poll. It is asking, essentially, 'who do you think OTHER people should vote for' when said 'other people' are perfectly capable of making up their own minds.
Do you expect to see the supporters of the two guys who lose this relent and say "damn, I was going to support Hunter but because most of the other people on the internet voted for FDT, I'm going to change my vote."
If it is the FR endorsement you are trying to assess, why not limit it to those who donated and then see what happens.
Calling Romney slick is a good sign,worked for Clinton twice, but no one is as slick as Clinton.
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.