Posted on 12/21/2007 10:27:06 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
is that a flip-flop or a “I’m gonna guess that I don’t want to answer even though you want an answer and I don’t know if I want to give an answer” answer?
The link goes to an article about judges.
Huck and Mitt are being pounded right now.
Good for Fred.
Well Ol” Sparky the NRA accusation was not as clear cut as you pretend it to be.
Regarding MLK it depends on figuratively or verbatim. You obviously have a thing against Mitt with your posts. So be it. But you have flat out lied in some of your statements.
That being said Go Fred.
One who claims Huckabee would make a “great vice president”....
Romney’s interview by Russert did a GREAT job of convincing me that he is NOT the candidate I want. Between weaseling, waffling, and just verbally wandering around questions without ever answering them, he showed an obscene lack of principle and conviction.
And what he did say about “reasonable” gun control and so-called “assault” weapons, mandatory health insurance, and letting illegals stay here didn’t help him a bit in my estimation.
Mitt is imploding at an alarming rate
Good grief. Anyone who votes for Romney owes an apology to both Clinton and Kerry.
You know what kills me? Every one of the “front runners” has got some kind of warts, RuPaul has big warts, Tancredo’s out and meanwhile, you’ve got this amazing, straightforward, principled, decent, solid conservative named Duncan Hunter who can’t get enough traction to rise into serious contention. Just a little less inspiring, only a little, is Fred Thompson, who is doing a bit better these days, but still not quite storming the barricades. I really liked them both all along, but the more I see the Romney flubs, the McCain immigration question, the Guiliani social issues, the Huckabee liberal side, the more these two guys stand out like a couple of gentlemen who wandered into a gin mill on the bad side of town.
It just kills me that the obvious quality of these two men does not rise right to the top, front and center or everyone watching this political version of Wrestlemania-Death Cage, so we could get on with the business of beating whatever socialist that other party ends up throwing in the ring. This process grinds down the big name candidates to the point where they may not even have any solid base of support left for the general-in either party or among independents.
If it were today, I’d vote for Thompson, but only because I think his chances would be better than Hunter’s.
Apparently, the left Mitt doesn’t know what the right Mitt is doing.
I’m starting to feel the same way. At first I was charmed by the idea of such a great looking, telegenic candidate, standing at the podium in debates with HildaBeast. Then, I couldn’t quite understand why some people were saying he’s kind of plastic, kind of fake. But now I do see it: and I agree that the impression more than anything else, is someone who doesn’t really have any core principles, just saying whatever it takes to get smoothly through and sound good for poll-tested expectations.
Romney is the Joe Isuzu of the GOP. Only thing is, Joe is still funny.
But, I have had enough of politicians tell people what they want to hear. I would rather vote for a candidate who has principles and stands by them. Even if I do not share those principles, I want a president who is willing to stick to his guns, and doesn't’t rely on whichever special interest group is hollering the loudest.
I am beginning to take a very close look at Fred Thompson. I do not mind that he is “laid back”. I kind of like that he says what he thinks in a few short and direct sentences, without wandering all over the place verbally, with non-answers.
Heh. Not bad. Not bad at all.
Then there were the tears.
HEEHAW, HEEHAW
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.