Posted on 10/09/2007 11:40:55 AM PDT by teddyballgame
“Those who will vote for “anyone” to defeat someone they most dislike, just might get much worse in the bargain, as I personally believe, Rudy, Mitt, and Fred to be.”
Therein lies the problem. If you think any of the GOP front runners are as bad as Hillary, clearly, you do not know just how BAD Hillary is. Hence, with all due respect, you lose credibility with me.
Yeah, well, so was Ray Nagin.
Romney's platform is pro-life and he acted accordingly as governor. Romney on guns... not nearly the straw man you present. Romney promises to veto 'annual appropriations (with the exception of defense) that grow spending at a rate greater than inflation minus one percent (CPI-1%)'. Romney is a rock-solid fiscal conservative and campaigning as a social & fiscal conservative.
You're no 100%er, you're a 150%er who wants purity retroactively. Bush campaigned as a born-again social conservative...how do you think he was living life before he was 'born-again'? Meanwhile, Romney's past includes incredibly successful business ventures, clean living, marriage to one woman, an incredible family, and you won't cut him any slack.
Thompson is not my first pick (its probably Huckabee) but I sure would be able to pull the lever for him in the general. But as for Willard, Trudy, and McLame ill either sit home or vote third party..
Fine. You'll get what you deserve...Hillary and socialism.
Nav_mom responds: BOTH Coulter and Rush have eluded to the fact that if it comes down to it, they will IN FACT become ABH voters as well.
I didn’t say Fred wasn’t a conservative, I said he wasn’t the conservative that his supporters think he is. There isn’t a perfect candidate out there. Unfortunately. But Fred’s position on CFR and his opposition to Tort Reform, cripes he supported McCain in 2000 over Bush, he voted not to remove Clinton, are some of reasons I’m not wild about Fred. Add in his week position on the Defense of Marrage Act, his cluelessness on the Terry Shiavo questions and they guy leads me to believe he is not the conservative he’d like you to think.
But always remember one thing........he didn’t get there by himself.
Now on the other hand if it was another candidate they should get the credit...
Romney has a reputation as problem solver and has a high percentage of successes!
Romney is a successful businessman. Big difference.
Yeah, well, so was Ray Nagin.
No we’re equating Romney to Ray Nagin?!? This why Free Republic drives me nuts some times. Good-bye.
There are many high tax, big spending, liberal, successful businessmen. Read the Wall Street Journal. Many support positions that, although they may be good for business, they are disastrous for America and American citizens like open borders and control of strategic businesses by hostile foreign countries. In addition there are a number of economic "theories" that different successful businessmen support.
How successful in business a person has been in the private sector is not a measure of what kind of president he, or she, would be.
Some just can’t help being mean spirited!
Fred explained his thinking on CFR and why it turned out to be a mistake in the end with how it worked out.
He does not favor centralized government making decisions and supports states rights to do as they see fit. What’s more conservative than limiting the power of the federal government? Oh, I get it, SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE control is cool, but liberal policies are not.
Bah
Romney creates big problems for Democrats. They don't run on their unpopular leftist policies, but rather by demonizing Republican opponents (with assistance from the MSM). As Ann says, they do this by portraying the Republican as either stupid and/or mean spirited.
Stupid definitely won't work, Romney graduated from Harvard Law and Business, he did so cum laude and as Crain Scholar (top 5%) respectively. His business success demonstrates his real-world ability. The Dems won't want to bring up the intellectual qualifications of the candidates, as Romney would bury both Clinton and Obama.
This leaves them mean-spirited. Romney is preternaturally affable, so much so that the Dems are left with fuming about Romney being slick (a quality they laud in their presumptive First-Lady). Mean-spritited won't sell.
Their usual template not working, the Dems will need to ad lib. In their desperation, will go for the obvious, and vilify Romney's religion. This creates a problem of making a fine distinction between Romney and the Democrat Senate Majority leader, which will be difficult. They cannot relish using bigotry, and the religious background of neither Clinton nor Obama is receptive to scrutiny.
The Dem/MSM template will be fully operational with the other GOP frontrunners:
Giuliani--------------Mean-spirited.
Thompson----------Stupid + Mean-spirited
McCain-------------Mean-spirited.
Thompson will have to come up with something other than colloquialisms to get my vote. I want to hear from his lips to my ears his responses in debates...more than one. I want to see how he competes under fire.
I will not vote for him either.
He did? In the Laura Ingraham inerview he did defended CFR, warts and all. What is your source for Thompson saying that CFR was a mistake? He defended the implementation of CFR in 2002 to SCOTUS.
Bitch slapping would backfire and such a candidate should be rejected for lack of smarts. Ridicule of Chrissy via humorous denigration would work better ... though I would vote for the one who steps out from behind his podium and walks over to lay one one smarmy liberal liar Matthews’ jaw, then say, “Now, we can have a debate about what is important to this nation, not Chris’s handlers at the DNC goon squad.”
And those big spending liberal businessmen are the people that I am talking about who will screw up the economy. You cannot have a good President who just doesn’t get it when it comes to the financial end of things. That’s my point. Economics and finance are necessary items but not sufficient ones.
Saw him on TV talking about it.....
Amen!
Getting frustrated in Straw Man City? It drives me nuts sometimes, too.
"When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney pledged not to change the state's abortion laws, despite his personal opposition."
I'm sorry but mitts personal objections mean nothing to me, his lack of action spoke loudly enough.
"Endorsed legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug."
""However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years.""
The only thing more despicable then someone who thinks abortion is ok is someone who 'does not' but does not have the backbone to be adamant about it.
On Guns: I notice pretty much every post on your profile is after 2004 when mitt started evolving so he could run for the white house. Pre 2004 he supported the brady bill and bragged about how 'he does not line up with those people (nra)'
Romney is a rock-solid fiscal conservative and campaigning as a social & fiscal conservative.
(1) Even if his pedigree was that good it does not unequal his how do you like me lately platform on social issues. (2) You call backing state provided health care *conservative*
150%er who wants purity retroactively.
LOL If mitt had started his evolution into a social conservative sometime *before* he last had to stand for office in MA I would seriously consider voting for him because I like some of what he has to say... Too bad it waited until he set his sights on the oval office before he started giving a dang about the unborn or our second amendment rights.
Fine. You'll get what you deserve...Hillary and socialism.
Nominate someone who spent the last election cycle to the left and wonder why social conservatives don't vote for ya..
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.