Posted on 08/20/2007 2:37:30 PM PDT by hardback
x, I think you marked the spot. Exactly right.
Fred can’t measure up to Ronald the Great. It’s doubtful if anybody every will.
But that’s not the point. The point is who is our best candidate to go up against the Beast. My personal opinion is that it’s Fred, with all his flaws, and all his strengths. And one of his strengths is that people are even asking this question about him — is he a Reagan?
Who else out there, on either side, would evoke that question from anyone?
Nice guy, good on Tv, but I fear He;s Bob Dole
I don’t have a problem with people who have seen the light, what difference does it make if someone used to believe abortion was ok at one time and now doesn’t believe in it? Ask any pastor of any conservative congretgation and he will tell you a lot of the women who have have actually had abortions who know realize it was wrong. What would you rather, that someone NEVER realizes the truth, that seems twisted. And plus, I want to know, under what context exactly were you led to believe that Romney used to believe in it? Was it that he thought it was a private decision? If so, that’s not the same thing as supporting something. There are many different levels of support, and I seriously doubt that he was a rapid supporter.That's an excellent, excellent paragraph you wrote there, rodeo-mamma. Heart-felt and chock-full of good points. (I only wish Romney, for his sake, was able to state the case as clearly as you. Then I'd feel better about him being a fall-back candidate in case Fred doesn't make the grade.)
When I read what you wrote about women who had abortions and then realized it was wrong it made me think of this:
All the people here in FR and elsewhere who argue so strongly against abortion... aren't they trying to convince people that abortion is wrong? Isn't that the goal of their arguments, to get someone to change their mind about abortion?
And if that's the case, and someone actually does change their mind on the subject, is it really productive to then turn around and call the convert a liar?
Aren't you working to make converts? Shouldn't you accept them when you succeed?
PS: I support Fred. I just think Mitt gets an unfair bad rap on this website.
Nice guy, good on Tv, but I fear He;s Bob DoleI would say: great guy, great conservative, but I fear he looks a bit too much like Bob Dole. It's the one thing I worry about -- in this shallow stupid day and age -- his looks.
Who’s the boss of the campaign schedule, you? Thank goodness the answer to that is no.
let's all be purist, accept no one who hasn't demonstrated a lifetime of absolute 24karat gold conservatism, and if that someone isn't there, let's just wait around for 4 or 8 years for him/her to show up
while you're waiting, read this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883986/posts
it's what all our future looks like under the Beast
In those days, November the year before looked like a perfectly proper and polite time to get into the race, especially when you had already laid the background work. My issues with Fred are basically two: (1)there is little he can point out as to having accomplished during eight years in the U.S. Senate and (2)so far, he seems to think he is entitled to the nomination without working for it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but we had a candidate for governor here in Pennsylvania who would have been a vast improvement over the crook still occupying the governor's mansion. Polls even showed he could soundly beat him. But instead of earning the nomination, he got it handed to him. The crook's machine beat him like a cheap drum.
Natchez Hawk wrote: “Exctlly. Reagan paid his dues...”
Poor Fred didn’t pay any dues at all. Not a penny! He has “only” served as:
*a lawyer in private practice
*a federal prosecutor
*TN 7th Cong Dist campaign mgr for John T., Williams
*a worker on Bill Brock’s bid to unseat Albert Gore Sr.
*Mid-state TN campaign mgr. for Howard Baker’s re-election
*Minority Counsel for Senate Watergate Committee
*Special Counsel to TN Gov Lamar Alexander(1980)
*Special Counse; to Senate Foreign Relations Cmte (1980-81)
*A US Senator for one and a half terms (8 years)
*Member, Foreign Relations Committee, 1995-96
*Member, Judiciary Committee, 1995-98
*Chairman, Youth Violence Subcommittee, 1995-96
*Member, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights Subcommittee, 1997-98
*Member, Technology, Terrorism and Gov’t. Information Subcmte, 1995-98
*Chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee, 1997-2001
*Ranking Minority Member, Governmental Affairs Committee, 2001-02
*Member, Finance Committee, 1999-2002
*Member, International Trade Subcommittee, 1999-2002
*Member, Taxation and Oversight Aubcommittee, 1999-2002
*Member, Social Security and Family Policy Subcommittee, 1999-2002
*Member, Health Care Subcommittee, 1999-2002
*Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
*Member, US China Economic and Security Review Commission
*Member, Council on foreign Relations
Yeppirs, too bad Fred hasn’t paid any political dues...
I have made the point that Fred could run to the right of his opinions in a state like Tennessee, while Romney may well have run to the left of his opinions in a Liberal state like Mass. Also, with a better balanced legislature Romney can get even more done in DC than in Mass. where the legislature was 85% Democrat. I had not thought of your point. Excellent! : )
That worries me. Not because all of them are one-worlders. Some of them are just along for the ride. But I'm not sure how to tell which are which.
Another interesting and astute observation, Vig!
Romney got a high draft number (unlike Clinton who used the military to stay out of the military) and didn't serve in Viet Nam. There is nothing dishonorable about that as much as we may appreciate the sacrifice of men who have served.
As for the rest of his record, it sounds like you've been listening to people who only tell part of the story. Check out Freeper Unmarked package for the REST of the story.
As I see it there are three viable candidates, none of whom are the ideological conservative I prefer. Of the three I like Romney best. He has a tremendously successful business background, much executive experience and has the mass appeal to beat ANY Democrat along with a clean personal life and a nice family.
You can continue to unfairly characterize Governor Romney or learn the truth about him and stop listening to and propagating the lies and distortions about him. The choice is yours.
Comparing Fred Thompson to Reagan is just laughable. First Nancy had to endure the pain of losing her much loved husband, now she has to hear that.
Fred reminds you of Sean Connery?? OMG. You must be blind and deaf. You have my sympathy.
“I don’t know about Thompson, but at the Iowa straw poll in Ames, Duncan Hunter very forcefully said that he would never apologize for America. Maybe that’s who you’re thinking of. Maybe that’s who you should be thinking of. ;-)”
Ah!! A reasonable post in the midst of a sea of “my moderate candidate is more conservative than your moderate candidate” posts.
Everyone knew that Reagan was running for president since his first official announcement on November 20, 1975 for the 1976 convention. 'Twas his speech at the '76 convention that put a lock on his nomination at the 1980 convention.
You forgot:
*Star actor of “Baby’s Day Out”
The truth? The truth about Mitt is that he: 1. Was pro abortion as a Massachusetts governor and remained so until he decided to run for president. 2. Openly courted the gay vote and even criticized private organizations (such as the Boy Scouts) on membership policy. 3. Was anti-war during his youth (as was his "brainwashed" liberal father). 4. Pro gun control and anti-NRA as governor (now is a "lifetime" hunter). Now, I for one, am open to someone who may believe that women should have the right to choose in the first 12-15 weeks of pregnancy (though I believe there is a point of 'no return') and I do not hat gay people (though I support the rights of private organizations to make membership rules)...I just wish that Mitt would be more honest about his flips and flops on these matters. As for his "high draft number" I remain dubious about his willingness and his conscience about Vietnam and he remains a draft evader in my book, just like Clinton!
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.