Posted on 12/21/2007 10:27:06 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
I agree with you here in principle, but to tell the truth, sometimes there are choices to make based on electability. Its the perennial argument of voting strictly on principle for a candidtate with no chance to win, versus voting for the "half a loaf" candidate, who has some positions you don't like, but you vote for, because he'll carry some of your policies into office and is clearly a better choice than whatever the opposition is offering. Can't say I like this reality, but it is the practical side of winning over time.
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.
Here I really agree with you strongly. In a way, I may have the pleasure of condradicting myself in that Fred could be the real deal in terms of conservatism and still could be a winning horse. I think he's gotten out of that too laid back category with his recent debate performances, like when he said hell no I ain't gonna do no show of hands. Boy was I cheering when he did that! One or two of his interviews troubled me in that there was something a bit lacking in his smarts, compared with say, Guiliani, who always seems to have a sharp articulate answer. Fred was asked something on whether he would apply military solutions to the War on Terror no matter what theater. He kind of meandered on that one, when I wanted him to say: "As president, I'll do whatever it takes to find, capture or kill every terrorist. period."
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.