Posted on 12/20/2007 1:41:59 PM PST by Robbin
“Why not Duncan or Fred????”
Because Bay Buchanan, a chief Tancredo supporter, is an apostate catholic turned mormon. Mormon hate Huckabee, so the best way to stick to Huckabee is to endorse Romney. Logically, Tancredo’s endorsement should have gone to Thompson who is closest to Tancredo on immigration.
Oh, don’t let the talk about Thompson not being a top tier obscure the action. This was a mormon attack on a Baptist.
Michelle is WRONG
I guess she has never looked at this.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
“Logically, Tancredo’s endorsement should have gone to Thompson who is closest to Tancredo on immigration.”
This is not delusional. Fred has better record in opposing legal immigration, but as for illegal immigration Romney actually has a record and clearly better than Fred (in actions). Michelle Malkin and Numbers USA agreed. So did Tancredo.
Now Fred has a nice policy, but talk is cheap. Also, last year Thompson stated that illegals should have aspirations of citizenship. I doubt that Tancredo or any other conservative finds this comforting. Also, Romney can win, unlike Paul, Hunter or Thompson.
So you admit you were untruthful, and made it up.
Just like your hero, Romney. Peas in a pod.
See post 62.
“Also, Romney can win, unlike Paul, Hunter or Thompson.”
Everyone else on FR seems to relish conspiracy ideas, so why should I be different? :-) So, with that being said, I still think this smells of a Bay Buchanan mormon helping mormon while sticking it to the Baptist.
“Also, last year Thompson stated that illegals should have aspirations of citizenship. I doubt that Tancredo or any other conservative finds this comforting.”
Oh, and this Mitt Clip is that much more comforting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bckSLaN49mo
Tancredo knows about Mitt’s and Fred’s past positions (and especially actions) and after considering them, Tancredo decided to support Mitt. This should be telling (but yeah, I know..Tancredo is just another soft on immigration RINO:)
Talk is cheap so it is best to check actions when in office. Fred does not fare well in this comparison.
Yeah, we can just go with Mitt and give all the Illegals green cards for being here.
Fred said in an interview with Laura Ingrim that giving Illegals cards to work is a LIBERAL idea and a wrong path for America. With the video that Tancredo posted, Tom seems to think the same thing. But Mitt...the video speaks for itself
Sorry world series bet from one civil master to another!
Just fun and games to most of these frauds!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1916469/posts
Esoteric Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo made an offer to a fellow Republican (and it wasn’t newly minted Sox fan Rudy Giuliani):
[Tancredo’s] campaign called ABC News to issue this challenge: The Colorado congressman will drop out of the race if the Rockies lose the World Series — if rival Mitt Romney agrees to pack it in if the Red Sox lose.
I crack up at the term "presser." :^) Like Hugh Hewitt's "graphs" and "ledes." Speaking of ... I see no mention of Tancredo's "presser" on Hewitt's site. Am I misssing something?
In that case, Republicans lose. Even if they win.
This is what flumoxxes me so much about Romney people. Nobody's saying (or should be saying) that Romney is evil, a bad guy, etc. At least, I'm not and I personally, I wouldn't need to even if I believed it, which I don't. I think Romney is what he is -- a very flexible adroit businessman and razor-sharp business manager who is so guided by those principles that he's unable to grasp political principles. They don't relate -- that's the way it is. If they did, he'd grasp such fine points of government as ... well, the importance of keeping government intrusion and meddling OUT our lives and dynamic free markets (i.e., NOT managed), which means lots and lots of small enterprises. Small business IS the largest employer in the nation.
You'd think Romney would get it because he's a business guy, but alas, the MBA part of him has found success in careful management and control of very large enterprises, so he sees roles in government the same. A lot of executives are fundamentally Liberal in their political beliefs -- "liberal" defined as seeing infinite rolls for government in "helping" Americans thrive.
This is God's truth, and the truth of Liberty: Government suppresses the ability to thrive, especially in free markets.
That's enough to reject Romney. Imagine how much propserity would blossom if people weren't manacled, shackled, and chained down by draconian bureacracy, taxation, legislation, and paperwork just to open a shop and employ a few people! Or perhaps you have no idea -- perhaps Romney doesn't either; perhaps he's not had much experirence with small business. Who knows. But the more government involvment, the less "thriving" of the people.
There's enough substantial, urgent, real reason to reject Romney without resorting to criticizing his religion, and without insulting his supporters by calling them "Liberals." I don't think Romney supporters are Liberals -- I think they're chickens. Just not able to really embrace the moral ethic of small government, and the risks it entails. Bigger is so much safer. In the short run.
Thompson, on the other hand, writes and speaks in ways that shows he grasps and embraces the ethic. It's his political compass, and it guides him to do right by our moral God-given freedoms: when in doubt, less government. Leave it to the individual. Or at least to the individual states. So I know where he stands on the 2nd amendment, health care, taxes, increased government, environmentalism, education ... nearly every issue. He's not perfect, but he sure looks better than the others to me.
“Thompson, on the other hand, writes and speaks in ways that shows he grasps and embraces the ethic.”
yeah. With CFR he tried to shut down free speech and protect incumbents. He was not just voting for it, he was the key author behind it and he even pushed for more liberal amendments to it. Sometimes in a leadership position you may have to compromise (kind of position Fred never held, though) but this was a senator we are talking about.
CFR alone is good reason to never trust that man. Given his high negatives in polls, it seems that most conservatives agree. CFR and his immigration record tell a lot what kind of person Fred is.
Tancredo, Bork and other real conservatives seem to agree.
You really like to make up stuff, don’t you.
If you can’t own up to the meaning of your own words, why bother saying them?
Obviously, since Tancredo endorsed Romney.
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.