Posted on 01/28/2008 9:21:21 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
Thompson is a ridiculous Veep choice. He’s old now. Another Cheney in terms of age and inability to run again . . . and another confused nomination process like the one we have now after this election, win or lose.
“Thompson is a ridiculous Veep choice. He’s old now. “
Fred Thompson is in his early 60s. In 8 years, he’d be younger than McCain is *now*.
McCain is also a ridiculous Presidential choice. He also is heckuva lot more energetic than Thompson is now. Thompson is an OLD man for a guy in his 60’s . . . and looks it . . . and acts it. He has major medical problems, God bless him and help him with them, but as a Veep it’s just not a good thing at all. He’ll leave us just where Cheney has. With a Veep running we would have the “establishment” candidate and an outsider challenge. Much more narrow choice and it would be much better than the flotsam and jettsom we are selecting from now.
I already did....today!
I agree that Thompson looks old.
But I thought it was shallow to discuss such things?
As for medical issues, well McCain has them too.
If you want energy and good speakers on the ticket ... dare I say ... Romney/Huckabee ?!?
I think Haley Barbour would make a great VP choice, or Sanford. We’ll see.
Did you vote for Huck already?
There is no lesser evil, there's just evil.
I'm not comfortable with compromise....I hope you won't be either.
So did my vote today.
This is all true.
Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate that we can put in the White House at this time. And this is viewing conservative views across the board of economic, social and foreign policy.
His main impact on abortion will be in nominating judges, and Judge Robert Bork's endorsement and the endorsement of many other prolife conservatives speaks volumes of the trust we can place in him to nominate good judges as President.
“Did you read any of the posts that put across points in a polite and reasoned manner?”
They tend to get obscured by the bile, hyperbole, and name-calling against the best Presidential candidate we have in the race right now.
Yah, I voted Huckabee. I don’t think it’s shallow to acknowledge that Thompson was an old looking guy now that he’s out of the race especially, since I’m not hurting a conservative in the race . . . but I think it would be a mistake to give him the veep nod. He’s a terrible campaigner. I’m ALL for Sanford for Veep. Give us a real conservative in Veep and win or lose at least we have someone to lead the party in the future. I’m for Sanford out of a contested convention actually for President. One of the conservative governors.
Good for you.
That’s how I see it. Thanks.
Come to think of it, you are probably right. If Thompson was a great campaigner ... he’d have done better than he did.
But he still could be an asset if Romney wins and he cant find a better southern central candidate (and I dont think its Huckabee) ... I’d suggest Frist but he’s way too boring. Jindhal would be great ... in about 4-8 years.
“I’m for Sanford out of a contested convention actually for President. “
Still pushing that pipe dream. LOL. we shall see.
we’ve had some arguments lately, so lets put that aside and end on agreement ...
“I’m ALL for Sanford for Veep. “ DITTOS!
Well I try to get past the lies and name calling by some Romney supporters to look at facts and dialog with other posters.
Don’t let those that can’t communicate without your adjectives above stop you from discrediting facts posted
The lies and personal attacks by Romney supporters haven't stopped me.
The facts are only obscured if you let them be.
“I’m ALL for Sanford for Veep. “ DITTOS!
_________________________________________
Much happier community outside of primary season I think here at Free Republic.
None of the candidates are “evil” unless Osama Bin Laden is in the race. Some candidates are better for America, some are worse. I had to explain to my son who said “do you like Obama?”, was that it wasnt a matter of like or dislike, it was what he would do for the country and whether I agreed he would do the right things as president. I might like Obama, and i would never call him evil, but the effects he would have on the country, or Hillary or McCain to a lesser extent, would be wrong or bad. So I wont support them.
Voting for the “least bad” or voting for the “best” are actually the same thing, its a preference selection. And voting to prevent bad things from happening to America is equivalent to voting to have good things happen to America. Its one and the same.
If the goal is to advance the prolife agenda, the #1 thing to do is to get a candidate who is most likely to nominate judicial conservatives to the bench. Even if the candidate is spotty on prolife issues, so long as they do that as president, they have done a great service. In that respect, Reagan might have been a more committed prolife leader, but GWB, with Alito and Roberts (vs OConnor and Kennedy), did more to advance the prolife cause.
You do not compromise your principles when you vote for a candidate who doesnt agree with you 100%. the only way to get a candidate to agree with you 100% is to run yourself. Every candidate will have a mix of good and bad, things we might approve and things we might disapprove. you are merely a job selector, picking the best out of the mixed bag of those who choose to run. If your point is - ‘we’ll i wont vote since none are good’, I wonder, are you saying it is acceptable for the country to have no president at all? I doubt it. Whether they are good, bad or otherwise, pick the best or the least-bad (label it how you will), so that you help nudge America down a better path than if you decide to abstain from influencing the choice.
the idea that “I wont get 100% of what I want so to h*ll with it” is a recipe for political irrelevence and handing over the future of the country to people who adamantly oppose your vision and view. Some people might want to have no responsibility, but it is hardly a wise choice.
Candidates come and go, but conservative PRINCIPLES endure.
*applause*
“With this crop of candidates ... on either side ... we are screwed. Fred ... where did you go ...:
I do wish we would hear at least something from Fred. Still praying for his mom’s recovery, and would love to hear that she is doing well.
I do have a feeling that we will hear from Fred between now and Super Tuesday. I also believe that Fred will endorse Mitt Romney. Just a guess, but that is my opinion.
The facts underlying this have been hashed and rehashed on so many occassions and threads in the last 12 months, tangling with the same anti-Mitt posters over the same issues. Romney’s shifts on abortion have been the most exposed story about him this campaign season. Alas, its probably the *only* thing some people know about him, neglecting the many other important factors to consider.
I just point to the overall record and say “Go, look into it all, not just a slice of it from someone with an agenda of distrust.”
If you look into his record, his life history, his statements, and his campaign statements and promises you can gain confidence that Romney will do alright for us conservatives:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~UnmarkedPackage
“Examine the record and accomplishments of Mitt Romney while Governor of Massachusetts and you will find that he applied and practiced core conservative principles of fiscal and social conservatism in one of the most liberal states of the U.S. It required courage to take the conservative positions and actions he did in the face of a hostile political environment.
I believe we should care about Mitt Romney’s actions while in a position of authority, since taking office in 2003, much more than we care about words he spoke in campaigns years ago. Mitt Romney’s record as Governor, when his actions had real consequences, tells the real story about how he would govern as President.”
I think Mitt Romney’s 1994 campaign platform is quite telling, since it indicates where Mitt Romney has been consistent for his entire political career -
http://www.freerepublic.com/~UnmarkedPackage/#mittnolib
“In the 1994 Senate race, Mitt Romney held the solid conservative position for 23 of the 24 issues listed; the only exception being the pledge to maintain the status quo in Massachusetts regarding a woman’s right to choose. A pro-choice position in Massachusetts in 1994 was a socially moderate stance accommodating the large majority opinion of voters in the state. In hindsight, it was wrong for a conservative to accommodate a pro-choice, status quo public policy despite his liberal constituency.
Romney freely admits now that he was wrong about the government’s role in protecting the life of the unborn and has changed his position on this issue to a pro-life stance as public policy consistent with long-held pro-life beliefs in his private life. However, it’s understandable how a first-time candidate in 1994, and former businessman, running a crusade for fiscal conservatism with solid conservative positions on crime, welfare, the economy, foreign policy, school choice, health care, and congressional reform might accept the status quo on a social issue respecting the liberal constituency he would represent.”
“I am LDS the person who has this knowledge on him is a Cathoic in good standing.”
A Catholic in “good standing” would never reveal another man’s faults publicly. What does the LDS stand for? Libel, Defimation and Slander?
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.