Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Would Free Republic Do If Fred Thompson Is Not The Republican Nominee? (Vanity)
December 9 2007 | jveritas

Posted on 12/09/2007 5:12:49 PM PST by jveritas

It is very obvious that Fred Thompson is Free Republic most favorite candidate and by far. On the other hand every other top tier Republican candidate, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain are absolutely disdained by most Freepers. Therefore this is the important question:

What would Free Republic do if Fred Thompson is not the Republican Party Nominee?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: elections; fredthompson; guiliani; huckabee; mccain; romney; thompson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-427 next last
To: karnage

Hillary is Fidel and Obama is Che.


And Rudy is Mussolini?

I’d rather not be forced to pick a thug, and instead send a message to posterity that I opposed tyranny.

Saddam got 97% of the vote, as does Fidel, and do the Republicrats.


401 posted on 12/10/2007 11:55:41 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Yes


402 posted on 12/10/2007 11:58:18 AM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Get a good pair of vice grips and support the nominee.

I'm glad to hear that.

Choosing Ron Paul is really a no brainer against Hillary though.

403 posted on 12/10/2007 12:01:15 PM PST by SwordofTruth (God is good all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

“What if Hillary were a Repub? Would ya vote for her?”

Well yeah, but that would be different. Everybody knows that a socialist with an R after their name is superior in every way to a socialist with a D after their name. Beside, she’s electable. Plus this is the most important election in the history of elections, just like the last election, and the one before that. We need to vote who can win, not who has principals, then next time we can vote for our principals. You know what else, the time to vote principals is in the primary, that’s why it’s important to start pushing Rudy right up front because he can win. Just hold your nose and vote R one last time, and next time we’ll put up honest conservative candidates. I promise, this time we really mean it. sarcasm off.


404 posted on 12/10/2007 12:13:17 PM PST by snarkybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
While you make many points, some with validity at the margins, the basic tenant of your argument it the following:

The problem is that voting for Rudy, or Huckabee or McCain would be every bit as likely to send the Nation over the cliff described above as voting for the Democrat or staying home.

Essentially, your saying that "there is no difference between the parties"; that is pure sophistry.

405 posted on 12/10/2007 12:14:07 PM PST by HardStarboard (Take No Prisoners - We're Out Of Qurans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Self destruct like the idiots over on DUhhhhhhh.


406 posted on 12/10/2007 12:18:37 PM PST by Dean Baker (Two wrongs may not make a right, but three lefts do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

I will support the Repubican nominee but I am not thrilled by any of them to tell the truth. Thompson and Huckabee definitely don’t do it for me, but if either of them is the nominee, they will have my vote.


407 posted on 12/10/2007 12:48:21 PM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot; Ol' Sparky; All

Please read these articles:

Why parole a monster like Green(Another Rapist Killer Gets Clemency from Huck) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937215/posts

Huckabee admits immigration plan has revolving door (amnesty or “guest” workers) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1937190/posts

Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1936099/posts


408 posted on 12/10/2007 12:50:52 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Your "dirt" on Fred is about as persuasive as a Nancy Pelosi Veteran's Day Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

DCPatriot, I would vote for the Huckleberry over the Marxists, but how can any conservative be enthusiastic for a man who pushed for in-state tuition rates for illegals, accusing an opponent of not drinking the right kind of “Jesus juice”?
Now, he calls for an “overarching strategy” for AIDS, a “partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide *necessary* financing and a realistic path toward our goals”. Your standard boilerplate policy wonk rubbish.
The more I hear, the less I like this clown. Blessings, Bob


409 posted on 12/10/2007 12:56:10 PM PST by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Reagan79
We should all meet up at the top of the Golden Gate Bridge and protest with a mass suicide.

If you really want to torture yourself, then lets all meet at my place on Nov. 6 and drink tanqueray martinis and eat potato chips till we all pass out.

That way, whoever is on the GOP ballot on Nov 7 won't seem to be as bad as we will be feeling.......if you don't like potato chips then I'll also provide pistachio nuts.

410 posted on 12/10/2007 1:04:47 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (Visions of sugarplums dancing in your head are probably caused by bad drugs.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
One word.

Just one word has put the GOP in this predicament.

MACACA!

411 posted on 12/10/2007 1:15:01 PM PST by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
"that is pure sophistry."

HOW true of so many here.....

412 posted on 12/10/2007 1:15:15 PM PST by goodnesswins (Being Challenged Builds Character! Being Coddled Destroys Character!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
If that is the case, we can at least refuse to participate in injuring her.

Disagree.

You have a right to vote. But you also have a duty to vote.

Thousands of Americans have died to guarantee free elections. Exercise your duty...and your right.

413 posted on 12/10/2007 1:21:58 PM PST by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
I’m not saying there’s no difference between the parties, only that there won’t be if the GOP has gone soft-headed enough to nominate Rudy, Huckabee or McCain. That’s not sophistry. It is a judgment you don’t even try to dispute and you’d be well advised not to.

There is no case to be made for the proposition that any of those three would damage America significantly less as President than Hillary Clinton. Republicans would be responsible for any of them in a way they would not be responsible for Hillary. If the country is intent on going to Hell in a handbasket, so be it. But I won’t promote the decline and you shouldn’t either.

414 posted on 12/10/2007 1:26:44 PM PST by fluffdaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I'll look everything over. Thanks.

I won't punish a candidate over a decision made by his judicial appointments.

Otherwise, President Reagan, my hero, would be diminished.

Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, whatever. No...I'll discount all this tabloid, gotcha crap.

As far as the Arkansas government, he beat the hell out of the Clinton machine didn't he? Which means he's major league.

415 posted on 12/10/2007 1:30:52 PM PST by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
Sorry, I understand how foreign policy works. Hillary is far too idealistic as far as what would actually work. She has stated in her policy outline in Foreign Affairs that she would withdraw from Iraq. Even if she ultimately does not, her suggesting as such only weakens our position in the Middle East.

As for Giuliani, he has indeed stated how he would deal with Iran. In the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs, he wrote:

"The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan's actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík in 1986: he was open to the possibility of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere. The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate -- whether ally or adversary -- must know that America has other options. The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure."

There are limits to how we can deal with Iran due to the necessity of keeping the Saudi royal family in power, yet Giuliani has shown that he will take a more direct approach. Hillary's approach is far to naive and rests on Iran simply agreeing to play nice, which goes against the very nature of how nation states act. Hillary is the one that is clueless, not Giuliani.

416 posted on 12/10/2007 1:35:58 PM PST by scarface367 (The problem is we have yet to find a cure for stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: scarface367
There is not one word of what you quoted that Hillary could not have said. She has said it all at one time or another. Naive is the last word that could be used to describe her.

Obama could be described as naive, but it wouldn’t matter a bit. The President is not a one man band. We can only be as tough as our foreign policy establishment lets us be, as GWB has learned to his cost. Only a powerfully counter-cultural President, like RR, could deflect our policy more than a fraction and neither Giuliani nor Clinton is counter-cultural in the least.

In an election between Rudy and Hillary I have no dog in the fight. I see no grounds for choice and consequently I won’t make one. The suggestion that our foreign policy will be more muscular with Rudy at the helm is utterly unsupported by the evidence so it does nothing to sway me in Rudy’s direction.

Notice that, in the passage you cite, Rudy doesn’t call for undermining the Iranian regime, only for making it clear the we can if we get really mad. After Iran has waged war against us for 28 years, that is pretty weak beer. For every one of those 28 years gasbag politicians have been saying that Iran has to understand that we can be a dangerous enemy, and yet the Mullahs are still in place unscathed. The Mullahs have long since stopped attaching any meaning to the empty words and so have I.

If the Republican Party is foolish enough to nominate Rudy I will at least have the satisfaction of watching somebody I despise lose. Cold comfort but better than nothing.

417 posted on 12/10/2007 2:30:59 PM PST by fluffdaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Although many Freepers disagree, I wouldn’t put Rudy in the same category as the Dims!


418 posted on 12/10/2007 2:48:48 PM PST by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

I’ll vote for whatever Pub. I hate the Dems much, much worse.


419 posted on 12/10/2007 2:50:08 PM PST by Tribune7 (Dems want to rob from the poor to give to the rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
Notice that, in the passage you cite, Rudy doesn’t call for undermining the Iranian regime, only for making it clear the we can if we get really mad.

Right, because a clear call to undermine the Iranian regime no matter what would be destabilizing to our Saudi allies. We have to be careful in dealing with the Iranians that our actions do not lead to encouraging radicals in Saudi Arabia, leading to a collapse of the royal family. With our ongoing operations in Iraq we simply do not have the manpower to take over Iran as well. Yes, we need to keep the nuclear option on the table as far as ensuring Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, due to the shifting of regional power that would occur. Giuliani has shown no intention of doing otherwise. The Democrats, not as much.

As far as completely changing our foreign policy, I see no need to. Bush has done a good job on foreign policy, even if it does somewhat stray from realism into idealism as far as spreading democracy is concerned. Giuliani approach, as he has outlined, recognizes the reality of the international scene.

As far a Hillary is concerned, read her policy outlines. Or read any other Democrat's policy outlines. They are simply too naive and operate under the failed assumption that if only we are nice our enemies will respond in kind. This is a dangerous view and would do irreparable harm to our national interest.

420 posted on 12/10/2007 3:07:07 PM PST by scarface367 (The problem is we have yet to find a cure for stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-427 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson