Posted on 01/19/2008 7:33:26 PM PST by awake-n-angry
I'll bet I did.
Based on who is winning primaries and leading delegate counts I think it is I, Bosco, who is based in reality.
Of course it is "group think". And the group on this "board" from the beginning are here as it is a place where like minded "conservatives" (dwindling group it seems) can gather and make their voices "heard" (seen).
It has never been, and based upon the latest posts by the owner, never will be a "Party" "board".
Fred Dalton Thompson, other than Duncan Hunter, is the only real Constitutional Conservative in the race for the Republican nomination.
Why wouldn't a "group" of conservatives engage in "group think" with him being the only alternative to more Republican gobbely goop?
For the first time in my life I can say Rush is WRONG
Agreed. I think Rush will throw in with Romney, because he will perceive Thompson as done, whether he actually drops out or not.
Anything to stop McCain.
Did you read the National Review reasoning for their endorsement of Romney?
The operant term is "viable".
That's where I "get it".
If McCain or Giuliani wins the nomination, I (and a lot of others) go third party.
That’s my “firewall.”
Pragmatic and WRONG.
A bunch of high minded words to justify a position they were arm-twisted into.
I have no problem with your supporting Romney, other than your reason that he is the only "viable" candidate.
I have no axe to grind here with you. I am not a big "R" Republican. Was, and an active one in time and money for 30 years. The last ten years I have been performing my civic responsibility as a nonaligned little "r" republican.
And I believe I have moved even one notch further from the Grand Old Party. I will no longer vote for their "viable" candidate. I will vote for my candidate, even if I have to write his name in. Which, whether you like it or agree with it or not, is my prerogative.
Diminishing those with whom you disagree serves more to diminish you and more so your choice of candidate.
Would Rush have to actively roll to the right or to the left to make you happy, a-n-a??
You unite behind Romney. I’ll find a conservative to support—even if he’s not in the GOP.”
If you had read my whole post, you would know that I said “if we want to influence the GOP nomination” then we should support Romney.
You are obviously willing to go outside of the GOP, which is fine. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. My post was directed to those who want to work in the GOP.
If you want to debate the relative conservative merits of the only candidates that have a chance to get the GOP nomination, namely, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney, then bring it on.
I have pretty much made up my mind for Mitt. It was either him or Fred for me.
And I think you’re wrong about McLame being inevitable. Someone of Fox tonight pointed out McLame has ONLY won when non-Republicans were able to vote in Republican primaries...this is just like in 2000. When REPUBLICANS ONLY vote, McLame is not able to carry a majority.
The man who can get Republican votes is the one who will win the Republican nomination. Right now, that is Mitt—he has the deep pockets and the Republican support that the Huckster and McQueeg do not have. :)
no. Some people said he did, and nobody had the heart to correct them, since it was thought the news might inspire more voters for Thompson.
Actually, Rudy has been defeating himself. And all of his support has gone to McCain. You could see McCain’s numbers rising as Rudy’s slipped away.
It’s not Rudy Fred has hurt - It’s Elmer Gantrybee. At least that’s what the Dope from Hope II and his campaign people are claiming. If that’s true, Fred has performed a valuable service to his country and his party by keeping the Arkansas charlatan from running away with it all.
It would make NO difference if Romney had distanced himself from Fred in SC. Fred is considered dead whether he is or not, and beating dead people isn’t considered newsworthy.
Romney is the only candidate who has taken MAJORITIES in any of our contests, and he’s done so in TWO contests now. He also has the highest winning percentage in a primary, AND the most absolute votes in a primary.
Only because the media loves McCain, the candidate who has been winning by larger numbers, has absolute majorities in 2 of 6 races, is leading the delegate count, and has won the “head-to-head” matchups in neighbor-states (lost by 5% in New Hampshire, wone by 30% in Nevada), is that candidate still considered an also-ran.
What I said was that it's a Fred Pond here at FR. Very high percentage. And that has led to aspects of group think.
And given how he's been doing in the primaries their time would have been better spent away from FR and doing work where actual voters in primary states are. It's preaching to the choir here. That's all I said.
Lots of Fred time and effort on FR and poor performance at the polls.
I have no bone to pick with you either.
Vote for your candidate.
I will continue to financially and actively, here in my local area, support Thompson's candidacy.
At this point my mind is pretty clear that if Fred is not on the ballot I will vote for him anyway by writing his name in.
But I have learned painfully, many times in my 60 plus years of life to never say never and to be prepared to rethink my position when necessary!
God Bless and good luck with your work for "your" choice for President.
Soon enough, things won’t be going well for supporters of Willard, either. Whether McCain takes him out or he is crushed by the Democratic nominee, reality will set in soon enough.
I recently learned there was actually a NAME for this logical fallacy that you are using as an argument:
It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.
You argue that "no conservative" would do something. But when it's pointed out that there are conservatives which ARE doing something, you then say "well no self respecting conservative", thus asserting without evidence that anybody who disagrees with you has respect for themselves.
Lots of conservative, self-respecting and otherwise, are supporting Romney. His list of endorsements is large, and the list of well-respected conservatives who say he is ACCEPTABLY conservative is essentially composed of ALL of them. You'd have an easier time making a list of every repsected conservative who said Romney was UNACCEPTABLE, because you couldn't list all the ones that find him acceptable.
And in the real (non-FR) world, they would laugh at your suggestion that Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin are not "self-respecting conservatives". OR that John Wilke, Robert Bork, Senator DeMint, or Tom Tancredo are not "self-respecting conservatives".
There are simply too many examples proving you are wrong for anybody to take your assertion seriously.
Amen to that. And, it should be career suicide for any "conservative" pundit to do so.
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.