Skip to comments.What Would Free Republic Do If Fred Thompson Is Not The Republican Nominee? (Vanity)
Posted on 12/09/2007 5:12:49 PM PST by jveritas
It is very obvious that Fred Thompson is Free Republic most favorite candidate and by far. On the other hand every other top tier Republican candidate, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain are absolutely disdained by most Freepers. Therefore this is the important question:
What would Free Republic do if Fred Thompson is not the Republican Party Nominee?
If being called a "bigot" offends you, you're listening to the wrong crowd.
The question will always be: does one abandon fellow conservatives by not banding together and defeating an enemy bent on political and social hegemony?
People may call it "principles". It is really petulance.
Thanks for all that. It’s a lot to get through and digest.
It a free country and you can call anything, anything you like.
Perhaps you may even be able to live with them.
Let's hope that the weights rest lightly.
Any one but goofball Paul
Hard core socialists in power in the Democratic party in the White House is much more destructive to America.
I have already made my decision? Thank You, so why don’t you just worry about your own little self.
Because I’m gonna write in his name for Senator. :-)
I disagree completely. If the Republicans are true to their cause, there is opposition to the Socialists. But that is not the case anymore. The RINOs from the Rockefeller wing are not very different from the Socialists they claim to oppose.Without the principles of Conservatism there is no opposition to Socialism at all.
A shining example: Who was it that stood in the breach (on principle alone) and blocked the Bush-McCaine-Kennedy amnesty plan?
No problem. I liked Huckabee too at first. Now, no way.
But your refusal to vote for him, if he is the nominee, will help send the Nation off the cliff to rampant socialism, uncontrolled immigration and as yet unimagined challanges from our enemies.
I have a stronger word than "foolish" for that cut-your-nose-off-to-spite-your-face approach.
If Paul is the nominee, there is a small chance I may stay
home. My nose is too big to hold and vote for Hillary or Barack
or Johnny boy.
Dittos from the Lone Star State.
>>>>>I have a stronger word than "foolish" ...
So do I.
I am a conservative not a Republican. I will vote for Republicans IF they are conservative. If Bush's opponent had not been Hanoi John Kerry, I would not have voted in the last election.
Islam's war against the west will inevitably bring the US a nuclear strike. The persistent open borders are a hot potato that will utterly destroy the party in power when it happens. I prefer that the borders be closed - but barring that, let it be the liberals who are destroyed if we're not going to move to prevent it.
This is as obvious and foreseeable as the earlier attacks on September eleventh. Aside from the loss we all will have of family and friends WHEN not if this happens, I recognize that the party who emerges in power will be able to radically reshape government the United States. Many on the left foresee this as well, and are actively working to keep our defenses weak.
I therefore am willing to sacrifice important pieces to win the game. Winning the white house or congress are less important than closing the borders. A candidate who could win an office, at the cost of placing someone in office that the left could justifiably claim failed to aggressively defend America costs conservatism control of the board.
By the same token I will not move to save a socially liberal republican candidate merely to defeat the democrat. Sometimes control of the board is more important than saving every pawn.
If I get a liberal in office who votes liberal while claiming (unchallenged) to represent the party with a conservative platform, then my voice is even more unheard than if a liberal democrat is in office. It means that conservatives will vote for anyone who claims< /b> conservatism, even if they are to the left of Hillary Clinton. It also means that the Republican party did this eyes wide open, believing that I (and other conservatives) would vote for a yellow dog if it was a republican. Sorry RNC that only works with democrats.
In addition let me say that both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have to varying degrees supported policies and legislation that gives homosexual adults access to children - Rudy to the greatest degree as an executive member of The Stonewall Veteran's Association and Mitt in opposing the Boy Scout policy of opposing gay adult membership. I would not vote for a ticket that included either of those creatures as VP.
Only Duncan Hunter and Tancredo are sure to close the border. Thompson might I could give him benefit of a doubt. The rest - meh
They don't have to be "of consequence" just conservative. I intend to preserve the conservative place at the table, and that means never allowing the conservative vote to be taken for granted. A presidential term is a single space on the political chessboard, and I would not sacrifice the viability of the game to control a single space for four turns. The political game stretches out over the years, and he who only thinks one or two moves ahead has already lost barring a drunken or equally poor opponent.
Many FREEPERS will be jumping out of windows...lol.
There's truth to that, but it wasn't an immediate change, as I recall. Keyes had the largest support (which is sometimes overstated) but there was always a large number of 'anyone but Al Gore' Republicans. As 2000 went on, sentiment turned overwhelmingly against John McCain for a number of (valid) reasons, then shifted to Al Gore, with Bush's support growing as those threats caught everyone's attention, and with Bush helping himself by courting the grassroots.
(In retrospect, I wonder how much worse McCain could have been than Bush...)