Skip to comments.Fred Thompson endorses Newt Gingrich
Posted on 01/23/2012 6:54:16 PM PST by LonePalm
click here to read article
What I'm writing is standard political doctrine. Granted, endorsements often are just attempts by a politician to collect a payback later, but endorsements in major races can and sometimes do make a difference.
Endorsements most often make a difference under the following circumstances:
1. The endorser has an active political machine and puts it to work on behalf of the candidate. That can be especially helpful if the endorser is a governor or the mayor of a major city who needs to have a political machine to get elected and uses it aggressively to back other candidates as well. If a person giving an endorsement gets lots of people to volunteer their time and make donations and make phone calls to friends and supporters, it counts a great deal. In addition, a “get out the vote” operation is inherently local, which means a local political leader can carry tremendous influence in actually getting their candidate's supporters to the polls.
2. The endorser represents an ideological cause. If that happens, the endorsement can cause people to say, “If A says B is okay, then A knows B well so I should take their advice.” We have seen that happening with Sarah Palin in several races and with Bob Vander Plaats in Iowa. It's also the role traditionally played by organizations such as Right to Life and the NRA.
3. Celebrity endorsements work. Sorry, but they do... I don't like it, but there are people who really **WILL** vote for a candidate because a prominent actor or musician or sports figure likes them. It doesn't make any sense to me, but it works, and I can't argue with facts.
At the very least, Fred Thompson's endorsement is category #3. Let's not minimize it — there are people who remember his TV show who don't pay attention to normal Republican politics and will listen, especially if he goes on TV ads and says things supporting Gingrich. I can't speak for the level of clout he still has in his home state and its political machine (i.e., #1 and maybe #2) so I will defer to others on that.
Is Fred to be Newt’s VP choice? That ‘screen presence’ would be a big bonus ... just sayin’
Are you his spokesperson? Or are you mind reading? Try speaking for yourself - not hiding what you want to say behind what you think someone else's thinks.
Talk about jumping on a someone else's bandwagon!
I suppose you can accuse me of being a troll or of jumping on a bandwagon, but I don't think anyone will accuse me of the slightest sympathy to the Mittwit. I had no use for his brainwashed father and have none for Mittwit as I have expressed here repeatedly.
OTOH, I do think you have been unfair to the Rev. Mr. Henrickson. I say this knowing that his denomination was founded (at least in my Roman Catholic view) in opposition to mine. All that was a long while ago before he or I were here on earth.
I have had numbers of exchanges with him here, always pleasant and respectful, always with each of us holding to his respective views. When he describes himself as a constitutional and social conservative in his tagline, I have every reason to believe that he is both from my experience with him. He deserves better than to be called a troll or to be disrespected.
It is one thing to have anonymous fun here bashing our enemies (Obozo, Romney, Paul, Huntsman would be my selection of enemies to make fun of), but it is quite another thing to bash those who are, in fact, our allies and ought to be our friends even if we differ in some respects.
I would advance to all that "winning" an election is not merely defeating Obozo but must include defeating him with someone who shares to some substantial extent our views. That disqualifies Romney who is (whatever he may say this week after conferring with his pollster): pro-abort, pro-homosexuality, a gun grabber, a genuine global warming "true" believer, a private sector job destroyer, a trust fund baby enabler, a man who cares not a whit for foreign policy or for beefing up and re-equipping our military, totally disconnected from the daily experience of the overwhelming majority of Americans (whatever his intentions) and will have no problem gutting social security and medicare out of excessive concern for "the bottom line." Our candidate MUST be a conservative and Mitt Romney is no conservative.
One example that particularly galls me is that he claims to have become a pro-lifer in 2005 as he pondered the embryonic stem cell matter. Suddenly he realized (!!!) that abortion kills a human being. He wasn't bothered apparently by the body count from more than 50 million abortions, by partial birth abortion, by sex selection abortion, but instead was suddenly grabbed by embryonic stem cell controversy??? I suggest it was more likely that he conferred with his pollster, learned that Osama bin Laden had a better shot in the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election than did Mitt and that nationally GOP primary voters would not sit still for an eager baby-killer candidate. Voila!!! Mitt converted then and there. However, despite his "conversion," Mitt included $50 abortions (cheaper than most non-generic prescriptions) in Romneycare and put Planned Barrenhood on its board to guarantee abortion in futuro. He did these things the year AFTER his alleged conversion to pro-life.
All that having been said, The Rev. Mr. Henrickson has simply expressed his open attitude and his concern that arguing for Romney even in the alternative, may have consequences here. I trust otherwise since his good and earned reputation precedes him.
Finally, he is a pastor. I am not and never will be. He has the same right to an opinion as any layman here and I do not recall his ever claiming special political expertise because of his profession. Certainly never with me.
All I ever got back from Fred Thompson is a cashed check.
I totally agree but he claiming he can't is what the topic was. And the slur from others about unless you jump on a certain bandwagon their opinion isn't welcomed. Beating around the bush in a lame accusation is weak. They should just say it or shut up - but stop the constant whining about it on threads. It's nauseating - supposed victim hood to get their way is so liberal as it is childish.
Wow. You're really itching for a fight, aren't you?
Back off. There's no one here to fight with.
Black Elk, thanks for your wise words.
I'm not coming back, presently, to fight with someone who's just swinging his fists in the air.
Sorry, but with all the real dangers we have to fight, picking fights for the heck of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Oh stop with your nonsense, already! You are becoming a bore. Don’t come back because you certainly won’t be missed.
I'm sure I won't.
I have a sure-fire method of solving your problem with FR. Just give me the word, we’ll git ‘er done.
If you’re here to trash Newt, then start saying your good byes. Make it brief.
Yes, I do believe that the endorsements may matter more this year than in the past. If there are people who have any doubts about Newt’s past work as Speaker, the strong endorsements from solid Conservatives could very well have an impact. Yay for Fred!
I'm carefully weighing the plusses and minuses of Newt and Santorum, and will be comfortable campaigning hard for either one of them.
As soon as he wins the nomination, a Newt sign is going up in our front yard, and a bumper sticker on both of our cars.
I have never thought anything else.
If anyone told you otherwise, they are mistaken or dishonest.
As I've said all along, I will support whomever is the Republican nominee, and if that's Gingrich, I will back him wholeheartedly. I have not bashed or trashed, and I will not bash or trash, Newt Gingrich.
At the same time, I will give consideration, at least, to other possible Republican nominees, as long as they are campaigning as conservatives and seem to have a chance at defeating Obama. If there are things in their past that cause me to doubt how conservative they really are, I will remain skeptical and I will need to have those doubts overcome. But I will ar least give such candidates a hearing. To give a candidate a hearing, weighing his pros and cons, and evaluating his current conservative rhetoric vs. his past less-than-conservative record--that is not the same thing as promoting or supporting that candidate.
Now, Darrell, you say that abortion is a deal-breaker for you. Same here for me. In fact, in 40 years of voting, if a candidate is pro-abort, that has always been my #1 automatic disqualifier. I have never voted for, and will never vote for, someone who is avowedly pro-abortion. I have worked against, preached against, taught against, and written against the evil of abortion for decades. I want a president who will seek to have Roe v. Wade overturned and who will nominate Supreme Court justices accordingly. It is both a constitutional and a moral issue for me.
However, if a candidate was previously pro-abortion but then "flip-flopped" over to the pro-life side, I could possibly vote for such a candidate. For example, I voted for just such a candidate in 1980 and 1984--a candidate for president who had formerly been a pro-abortion governor but who later "flipped" to the right side of the issue. Of course, if someone *says* they are now pro-life but had previously been pro-abort, I will want to hear more to convince me of the sincerity of their current position, before I could support them.
Also, Darrell, as you say, this time Missouri does not have a binding primary, so that renders our votes rather moot. I will have to wait and see who our Republican nominee is, and I will then gladly back him, because my goal is to defeat Obama.
Reagan was not pro abortion and you’re a lying SOS for saying so. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Reverend Charles Henrickson is a casualty on LIFE.
President Reagan was always pro-life. ALWAYS.
Illbedamn, Charles!? He’s gone too?
Just a little while ago.
Looks like Charles was unZOTted.
Bless his heart.
Did you move to Texas by any chance? LOL
There’s a lot of misinformation out there about Reagan. I’ve been hearing for years that he had been pro-choice at one time, but apparently that’s not the case.
I want to retract and apologize for my use of the term “pro-abortion” in referring to Reagan as someone who had formerly been a “pro-abortion” governor. That was a mischaracterization on my part. I was referring to his signing of the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act, which did permit abortions, a decision which Reagan later deeply regretted. But that does not mean that he himself was “pro-abortion” in his intent when he signed it. So again, I retract and apologize for that part of my post 165.
Thank you, Charles. As a pro-lifer, I knew what you were referring to, and appreciate the correction.
I have no idea what happened to change this and it's none of my business.
What I do know is that I've been trying to caution a number of Santorum supporters and others who aren't sold on Gingrich (at least not yet) to remember that as conservatives, we need to remember that an owner can do what he wants with his property.
Jim Robinson has explained his reasons for wanting to stop bashing of Gingrich on Free Republic. The reasons make sense to me. If they didn't, I would quietly defer to the site owner and stay quiet, but in this case I can not only accept but defend his reasons to fellow social conservatives.
I can live with either Santorum or Gingrich among the remaining candidates, and unless things change quickly for Santorum, all of us in the conservative movement are going to have to do the same and accept that Newt Gingrich is going to be the only candidate capable of stopping Romney.
It's not as if Gingrich isn't getting supporters from strongly conservative Christians. I just today read an internet post from a leader in my denomination saying that Newt Gingrich lost the precinct that includes Bob Jones University by **ONLY 15 VOTES!!** If Gingrich can do that in the heart of the Bible Belt, he's obviously succeeding in winning a significant number of conservative Christians.
Let's try to remember that the goal is to get rid of Barack Obama, not to attack our alternative conservative candidates.
I applaud your honesty in admitting your mistake. Honesty seems to be a forgotten virtue when it comes to politics and posts on political fora.
My tag line sums it up nicely.
Thank you also to Jim Robinson for unzotting a brother.
I had heard similar things about Reagan in pro-life circles, but had never personally researched the matter since it was obvious that whatever Reagan may have said or done years ago, he had long since become consistently pro-life and fought hard for pro-life positions.
I'm glad to see the facts about Reagan. Lots of people I know have said different things about him, but to roughly paraphrase Reagan himself, the problem is that lots of people “know” things that just aren't so.
Accepted, Reverend, and glad to see you back!
Most of the time bills are presented for singature that contains dozens if not hundreds of various issues in them. The transportation bill will have education dollars; veto it and the opposition claims you are against education. The education bill will have an abortion issue in it; veto it because of that and your career is sunk as being against education.
Reagan as both Governor and President signed all kinds of bills that he had to hold his nose to sign. Every Governor and President has had to do so. Newt will be no different.
We agree. I'm no fan of Gingrich, but the alternative of a Romney presidency is unacceptable to me. When the time comes, I will cast my vote for Gingrich over Romney.
I refuse to vote for pro-aborts, not as a single issue, but because it is an indicator of a horribly flawed character. If you don't respect innocent life, then all your moral principles become suspect. If your moral principles are suspect, you can't be trusted on any issue.
In Romney's case we see many examples of his malleable positions on moral issues from abortion to the homosexual agenda to state control of life decisions through state-mandated and regulated health insurance.
On moral issues, I see no difference between Obama and Romney. Neither has a remote chance of getting my vote.
While it's nice to hear how others support a candidate, by NO way do they persuade me. If one can be persuaded by anything other than the candidates record, then they also can be persuaded by the media. And that's what they excel in because they have the means to do it and too many willing to listen to their garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.
I have not bashed or trashed, and I will not bash or trash, Newt Gingrich.
Why should you? What is to bash? His love of America is obvious. He hasn't burned the midnight oil studying socialism but Our Constitution. You don't spend your life studying on something you don't have a deep love for. That's patriotism! Contract for America, balance the budget, etc., etc, etc. and his years in Congress have, hands down, shown Newt is the man for the job.
I will give consideration, at least, to other possible Republican nominees, as long as they are campaigning as conservatives
NEWFLASH! They ALL are - so that tactic didn't work.
Comparing a candidates accomplishments FOR AMERICA, Newt wins hands down. Comparing candidates on their truthfulness, Mitt loses hands down. He's a known liar even among his own peers.
And he's lying about repealing obamacare and that would only take an ounce of wisdom to know that. Embracing romneycare and repealing obamacare doesn't even compute! But yet he is able to persuade many that he will! LOL! Con men need suckers to survive as we are living that now. Barry had soros money, the media and his liberal buddies behind him. And mitt has the money, the media and his GOP elite, Wall St behind him. It takes all that to scam Americans and they learn from each other how it's done.
And there is a difference from flip flopping and admitting you flipped - to flipping and not admitting it. And that's Mitt - denying his past exists, 'acting' like he was on the right track when he wasn't.
But I will ar least give such candidates a hearing. To give a candidate a hearing, weighing his pros and cons,
Mitt's pros and cons have been discussed here over and over again and there is a link for it here. He had his 'hearing' since 2008 - he has no new accomplishments but his known backstabbing has continued.
And that's my rant and it's not meant to persuade. Will I trash Mitt? You betcha - every chance I get. Liars repulse me. He can lie on national TV and doesn't flinch but wears that smirky smile. One doesn't need much wisdom and discernment to know what that man is full of - EVIL! Sounds like barry I'm talking about but it's mittens himself, barry's counterpart!
Keep it honest - What bandwagon ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ where you speaking of? It’s easy to follow your posts. Holding the tongue while whining and then pleading innocent is not a conservative trait.
Who did you have in mind? Who are they?
"Bandwagon" - if I support one conservative candidate over another, I will not tolerate even legitimate questions about that candidate. I cannot say anything negative about Bachman, Palin, Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Santorum or any other legitimate candidate without being attacked by those on the "bandwagon."
As I have observed the candidate threads for the last months I have seen a lot of unnecessary attacks by good freepers on "bandwagons."
If you interpreted that one word to mean I was going to be trashing Newt, you were sorely mistaken.
And as for questioning my honesty. The only thing that gets me in trouble is that I am TOO honest. Your attempt to pick a fight with me yesterday, and now your accusation that I am not "honest" prove that you are exactly the kind of freeper who does what I find un-helpful in the overall goal of getting rid of Obama.
I have repeatedly stated my honest opinions. I was leaning toward Cain until he dropped out. Now it is between Gingrich and Santorum for me, and I see positives and negatives in both candidates. As a strong pro-lifer, I love the fact that Rick has been a champion for the sanctity of life. As a fighter, I love the fact that Newt is afraid of no one and will say what we're all thinking.
I see negatives in both of them as well........which all "honest" conservatives do.
Ohio's primary is a number of weeks off, and by that time, I will have made my final decision, but until then, I would like to see honest dialogue, and not petty accusations based on absolutely no facts.
For me, accusations such as you have tried to level at me are the epitome of what is not "honest."
MITT IS 100% EVIL - when he wants to lead this country by his liberal mindset while soldiers have fought and died for our freedoms he is 110% EVIL.
Mitt is not 100% evil and Newt is not 100% good, but that honest discussion is frequently prevented
There is NOTHING honest about Mitt to discuss - obviously you disagree with those who have jumped on the American bandwagon. Mitt's got a commie bandwagon - just jump on it and leave Patriots alone - we have nothing to discuss with you.
He knows he must lie to get votes and he knows he doesn't have conservative values and has his own liberal ideas for our country, he knows he needed lots of money and media support to carry off his con job on America. He knows he has to LIE constantly and backstab Newt because he is in his way to accomplish his liberal goals. NEWT is PRO AMERICA, Mitt is ANTI-AMERICA as is his protector, the media, who covered for barry, also!
So don't EVER post to me that Mitt is not 100% EVIL!! And you dishonored yourself - no one needs to do it!
And I'm on the bandwagon FOR American and, obviously, you are not! Stop talking with split tongue - so you can hang on.
They voted for obama - well then you have liberals for neighbors. So what’s the big deal. This year they have two choices - barry or mitt.
Here - give them this about obama’s counterpart - the known liar.
Until then, you may continue this fight with yourself, since you obviously either can't read, or choose not to think, and this 'discussion' is of no use to either of us.
Sincerely and honestly,
(Your apology will be accepted if at any point in the future, you figure out what I really was saying).
dm: I second that entire post!
Read post 177 (which you quoted) and 182 (where what I quoted was requoted by another person). I can live with Santorum or Gingrich though I'm not a huge fan of either.
In my state I don't have a choice. Gingrich is not on the ballot for the Missouri primary. The race is likely to be over when the Missouri caucuses get held.
I think your underlying question is who I oppose. To be crystal clear, I believe the primary purpose of government is to protect its people from attack. Ron Paul's foreign policy and Mitt Romney's history of flip-flopping on abortion make them both unacceptable. Neither baby-killing nor caving in to Islamofascism are tolerable.
191 posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:55:41 AM by BlackElk: “dm: I second that entire post!”
And now you bring up other candidates no longer in the race? LOL!! That's call the romney double speak. Go, you are getting to be more repulsive by each post - I'm done with you. You were good for one reason - to prove my point.
WHAT? I say what I mean and mean what I say. I have NO underlying question.
YOU: not to attack our alternative conservative candidates.
ME: Who did you have in mind? Who are they?
All you had to do is give me the names - that's all I asked for! And you spin that into I have an underlying question and I want to know who you oppose! AMAZING!!!!
To be crystal clear,
And being crystal clear - you STILL didn't give me the names and that's ALL I asked for. This reminds me of Mitt debating - lots of junk and no answer to a very simple question.
Santorum and Gingrich. In that order — at least for now.
I don't see how I could be clearer than that.
If you'd asked me not too long ago, I would have added Perry to that list as another acceptable alternate candidate to Gingrich, but he's no longer an option by his own choice.
And the people who actually worked with him in the House?
Many of them have endorsed Romney...does that matter?
Let me explain something to you theologically regarding my first post, and one of your responses.
No matter how much you or I hate Mitt Romney, he is not "100% evil," and no matter how much we like Newt, he is not 100% good. Even if you do consider some people "100% evil," one assumes you're talking about the Stalins, Pol Pots, Hitlers, Maos, bin Ladens, etc.....not a political rival.
I didn't think then, nor do I think now that saying Mitt was not 100% evil was a statement with which any rational person would disagree.
We are all fallen creatures, our righteousness as 'filthy rags'.....no good at all on our own. We are also all made in God's image, therefore not 100% evil......not even Mitt.
And stating that is in no way supporting the man, but only the reality that your hyperbolic opinion is not accurate.
My only point was that for political discussions to be worth anything, we can't be jumping all over each other's backs for minor differences. We have to be able to discuss the essence of conservatism, and the details as we perceive them.....whether the social issues or the economic issues are more important to us......and do it respectfully.
As long as there are people like you who call other conservative freepers "dishonest" and "repulsive" when they are on the exact same side of the issues, and probably supporting the same candidate in the end, you are diminishing the entire process.
You can insult me until the cows come home, but if nothing you said has any basis in fact, it only makes you look bad.
And right now, you really do look bad....
Fred is also a good man in that contest but I didn't think that his heart was really ever in the race but Duncan couldn't get arrested - the Establishment already had picked their man.
Hopefully, that won't be the case this year.
Oh......and I forgot to mention how amazed and amused I was when I read this goofy comment.
You are VERY confused, no name. VERY confused.
But it did make me laugh when I read it, so I guess that's worth something, eh?