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?
Um, yes, I’m aware of our little feature known as the Electoral College. So I will rephrase for your benefit: I will support the Republican nominee as long as they are Fred or Duncan Hunter. If a liberal hijacks our nomination, I will not. I will not aid and abet the liberal cause by spreading the cancer within our party. If I am prevented from the ability to write in Fred’s name, I will either vote for a suitable Conservative 3rd party alternative or will leave that office blank. I vote by absentee in any event, so I always have to write in a ballot by hand.
Thank you for the thread. Very interesting. Happy to know that MOST would put their country first.
We'd go to local graveyards with mallets and oak stakes........
I hadn’t thought about that. Maybe that’s a good question — how many of the “3rd-party” people are in states where their vote would actually matter?
I’m in Virginia, and I’m assuming votes will be important here. But half the states are probably already foregone conclusions.
Who's Bish ?
Do not want Giuliani as nominee; but IF he is; absolutely, I will vote for him for President. You may have read what I said. . .but you cannot 'get it' and still imagine there is a luxury of voting choice here. . .or imagine that Rudy and Hillary are interchangeable parts.
Shouldn’t you be more concerned about the future of your country?
I’ll vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, because I don’t want the Clinton Criminal Machine anywhere NEAR the White House ever again.
That’s close to my thoughts. I’ve put Romney first, but only because of his superior organization and campaigning which make him look more likely to be able to be Rudy. I’d be happy to support Fred, even though it would mean suffering the glee of some pretty pathetic posters around here for a while.
Mccain would be my third, but I’d put Huckabee in front of Rudy. Hoping I don’t have to drop down past my 2nd choice though. I give McCain the nod because he might well leave after 4 years, and if he picks a good VP we might come out ahead.
I am, that's why I will never vote for another Rino that will turn around one day and call me a bigot are worse.
A little off-topic, but if you want to have fun with the O&O show, write letters to the editor and suggest that of the two, Oprah is the more qualified candidate, and ask why Obama thinks a woman can’t be President.
Sorry for that typo. But I am sure you are intelligent enough to figure out who I meant! Actually I am cock sure LOL.
I wish there was a edit function to correct typo’s.
"I would hope that no matter who we are, or where we are from, that America should always be a place that opens its arms, opens it heart, opens its spirit to people who come because they want the best for their families."
-Mike Huckabee [spoken along with Tyson Foods Inc. Chairman and CEO John Tyson, at a noon luncheon of the League of United Latin American Citizens]
Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery. He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.
Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there's a real problem. But theres not.
Thanks for posting that. I agree with him 100%.
NOW I'm really going to vote for him if he's the nominee. ;^)
Write in Hunter.
Spoken like a true Nativist. ;)
I know, I’m just having fun with you. I agree, I wish there was an edit function. Most newsgroups have that ability to reedit your post after being sent, I don’t know why we don’t have that here... :-/
Now that just about perfectly describes the "I'm gonna vote third party if my nominee doesn't win" attitude that quite a few seem to have around here.
Since Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo is not included in your "acceptable" list, please feel free to let us know what makes him one of the evil "liberal RINO socialist" in your mind.
I'm all ears.
I will never skip a general election or waste my vote in order to ‘send a message’. My preference of republican candidates in descending order would be:
1) Duncan Huntere (i’ve already given up on him as not viable)
2) Fred Thompson (hoping his campaign will show some signs of life)
3) Mitt Romney (some management skills, currently professes correct positions on most issues, doubts about his wafflyness)
4) McCain (many of his stands have irrated me, but he has been firm on the WOT, Life, and fiscal restraint, also a genuine hero despite his irratating temper)
5) Guiliani (way too much personal baggage and not a conservative, but better than hillary)
6) Huckabee (some wacky positions have emerged, and he would be smeered by the press as a wacky televangilist)
7) Tancredo (I like him but he has no chance at all, he’s sacrificed his political viability to be a hero on one issue)
I would vote for any of these before considering a vote for Clinton, Obama or Edwards.
The only candidate in the republican field who would make me consider Clinton or Edwards is Ron Paul, and no candidate would make me consider Obama.
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...)
4. Romney (holding my nose by now)
5. Paul (really holding nose...brain-hurting by this time)
6. McCain (hellooo 3d Party)
7. Rudy (actually moves up in my poll...scary)
8. Hucksterbee (really bad being behind Guleeani...scarier)
1- Duncan!!! (Everything is great)
2- Romney (Executive experience big time)
3- McCain (War Hero)
4- Huck (love the pro-life stance)
5- Thompson (hate his pro-life stance)
6- Guiliani (WOT great)
7- Ron Paul (Don’t give him time of day)
8- Tancredo (Never considered him or studied his issues)
I actually felt the 2004 election was the most important of our lifetime. You didn’t?
Old Democrat canard. No, he wouldn't. He'd cause GOP conservatives to stay home, throwing the election to the Dems. Which was the whole idea, when the MSM were telling us that lie the first time around, eight years ago.
Reason #2 is the MSM will absolutely try and destroy any Republican except McCain.
Another Democratic journopolemicist's lie. Look what they did with Bob Dole in 1996. In the spring and summer of 1995, Clinton took his Chinese reptile money -- the Chinese intelligence-agency money he and Hillary took from John Huang, Johnny Chung, Ted Soeung [sp?], and the Riadys -- and gave it to Dickie Morris, the toe-sucker, to mount a major market-testing, focus-group, and advertising campaign in third- and fourth-tier markets, "under the radar" (example: Jackson, Mississippi). This was when he and Morris developed the themes and voter intelligence that would get him re-elected in the teeth of the GOP sweep of Congress.
Meanwhile, MSM drones like Jonathan Alter, writing in Newsweek, were telling the GOP delegates-to-be that they just had to nominate Dole, in order for the Republican Party ever to be taken seriously again.
The MSM's line, coming out of the hate-a-thon they started against Republicans after the '94 win, was that the GOP, having swept both houses of Congress, was somehow becoming irrelevant and falling off the map of the known, respectable world by becoming dingbats who <snort!> actually reflected the will of the People! Talk about irresponsible......!
So, in order to get back into the good graces of the MSM, the GOP had to show that they were really serious people after all by nominating someone with gravitas, someone with dignity. Someone named Bob Dole.
Why Dole? Because Clinton and Morris's test-marketing work with likely voters had shown that old, acerbic Bob Dole was their best possible matchup in a contest for reelection.
So that's what Alter told Republican readers. Think he didn't know about Tricky Dickie's polling and marketing information? Fat chance he didn't.
And so, of course, as soon as the GOP nominated Dole, the MSM tore into him, and Clinton crushed him like an empty beer can.
So much for gravitas.
Why does that idea amuse you?
I’m almost as positive as you are.
When the Michigan primary comes around, I’ll be at the polls for Thompson.
As I do every general election, I will be voting against America’s Enemy Number Two, without regard to whom i might seem to be voting for.
But I hope that’s Thompson, too.
Support the nominee no matter what, because somebody who is conservative only 50% of the time is more dependable than somebody who is conservative only 0% of the time.
Many FREEPERS will be jumping out of windows...lol.
Why does that idea amuse you?
Are you that serious that you can’t tell a joke around here. Good grief. You must be on anti-depressants for sure or should be...
Go Rudy, Go
“I read on here and on the wiki entry for FR that Bush supporters were purged at some point during the 2000 presidential election, but then the site did a 180 and supported him.”
Must have missed that.
I will not stay home. I will never again vote for anyone but a Republican.