Don't Know If I Can Believe Him


BluesStringer

Les Brers
When rumblings of Fred's imminent entry into the race first started, I was ecstatic. I donated to his non-campaign campaign, thinking he was the answer. I waited as patiently as I could for July 4th, the day that Hannity and others close to Fred predicted he would announce. It came and went, no announcement. Then another Republican debate came and went, still no announcement. That's when I started really getting bugged by his "wait-'em-out" game. I needed to hear from him, and I needed to hear him in relation to the other candidates I really liked, Huckabee, Hunter and Tancredo. As ape-s*it as many Republicans are for Rudy, I've been nervous about him from the beginning, and Mitt too, though with Mitt, it was more of my own bias against Mass and its uber-liberal citizenry that made me distrust him. I couldn't see how such a liberal electorate could elect a truly conservative governor, and I still feel that way.

Anyway, Fred has disappointed me at every turn since first starting the rumors of his run. Huckabee, Hunter and Tancredo have not only not disappointed me, but they've shown up to endorse The FairTax at both rallies I've attended. As well, they have all mentioned The FairTax as a viable solution to the idiotic and confused system we've allowed our politicians to impose on us. Huckabee, more than just mentioning it in the debates, is basing a large percentage of his campaign on supporting it. Fred vacillates and dodges when asked if he supports it, and will go no further than saying that, if passed by Congress, he would sign it into law. That's better than nothing, but way short of what I, as a 5-year+ activist for The FairTax, want or need from my pick for President.

That's where I was when I started reading this thread. I can't really explain why, but I failed to pay very close attention to Fred's 2A record when he was in the Senate. It surprised the heck out of me to see just how "general" his 2A support was when I went to one of Bohemian's links and saw a chart chronicling that record. Actually, the chart was linked from Bohemian's link, and went to GOA's site. Link Removed if anyone would care to take a look, but there are WAAAAAY too many "Anti-Gun" scores on that list.

In fairness, many of Fred's anti-gun votes came in the aftermath of Columbine, a time when I'm sure lots of deals were as much as forced on "generally" pro-2A politicians in order to get cooperation on other things.

That said however, Huckabee stood firm against the gun-grabbers in the face of Jonesboro and Columbine during his tenure as governor.

The three most important issues in this cycle to me are The FairTax, effectively prosecuting the War on Terror and 2nd Amendment issues. Huckabee wins after long, careful and thoughtful consideration, thanks in part to y'all's very informative and well-argued discussion in this thread. Soooo.....

I Like Mike!

Blues
 

doublenutz

New member
The three most important issues in this cycle to me are The FairTax, effectively prosecuting the War on Terror and 2nd Amendment issues. Huckabee wins after long, careful and thoughtful consideration, thanks in part to y'all's very informative and well-argued discussion in this thread. Soooo.....

I Like Mike!

Blues

Bro, I like Mike too, but he simply will not beat RINO Rudy and that is a much more dangerous option than Fred Thompson any day.
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Bro, I like Mike too, but he simply will not beat RINO Rudy and that is a much more dangerous option than Fred Thompson any day.

I think it's much too early to come to that conclusion.

I can't recall right now if it was on this site or another one, but the subject of "the lesser of two evils" came up in a recent discussion I was involved in. The bottom line for me is that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. While I'm not saying Fred is truly evil, the plain fact is that he's only truly strong on one of my top three issues, and Huckabee aces them all. If a candidate going counter to one's core beliefs is what we're referring to as the "evil" in the lesser of two, then I can't in good conscience recognize that and still support that candidate. It isn't a popularity contest for me, it's an issues contest. No disrespect intended or implied, but, sorry, Huckabee's my guy.

Blues
 

Bohemian

New member
Republican 2008 sell-outs on the second amendment and the constitution...

Bohemian's Litmus Test:

You have to pass test number one to get to test number two...

Test number one...
Does the candidate have a perfect pro-gun record?
if no...blue... candidate fails...

Republican 2008 sell-outs on the second amendment and the constitution...

Rudy Giuliani - fail
. Supported federal gun control laws as mayor, including a nationwide ban on assault weapons.
. not enough space on the web to hold all of Rudy's anti-gun positions, votes, support etc...
. Now he's a lifetime member of the NRA...

Mitt Romney - fail... on Gun Control - I support bringing back the assault weapons ban and support the Brady bans.
. In 1994 Mitt campaigned on support of the Brady Bill and said it wouldn’t make him a friend of the NRA.
. In 2004 Mitt as Governor signed a Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban...
. And others...
. Now he’s a lifetime member NRA...

Fred Thompson - fail
And you can Drop Dead Fred Thompson voted for a supplement to the assault weapons ban...
. Link Removed
. And others...
. Now he's a lifetime member of the NRA...

100% Support record for the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment:
Mike Huckabee - Pass and Ron Paul - Pass...
Mike and Ron do not just talk the talk; they walk the walk...

Without the unyielding support for the constitution and the 2nd amendment all positions on other issues are meaningless...

Test Number Two...
Does the candidate support the proactive approach to terrorism and homeland security?
If no...blue...candidate fails...
Ron Paul - Fail

We are left with the one true strong constrictive Mike Huckabee after just a two-part Litmus Test...

There are obviously other nearly as important issues, but the first two are deal breakers for me, obviously there is no perfect candidate, nor ever will be; but I will not comprise when it comes to the second amendment, the constitution and national security...

Here are a couple more tidbits for those whom misguidedly think Fred Thompson is to be trusted...
When 91% of the republicans in the senate supported the conviction on perjury of former President Bill "Slick-Wille" Clinton during his impeachment
Fred Thompson voted against it on both counts and with 100% of the democrats...

Fred Thompson voted for the gun free school zones and other purposes act of 1996 (AKA: The Kill free zone; leave our kids and their teachers defenseless and further 2nd amendment infringements act of 1996)

Please try to vote for candidates with more integrity and spine in the primary...
 

doublenutz

New member
Electable -or- Not Electable

Ron Paul - Not Electable
Mike Huckabee - Not Electable
John McCain - Not Electable
Duncan Hunter - Not Electable
Fred Thompson - Electable
RINO Rudy - Electable
Osama Obama - Not Electable
Billary Clinton - Electable

So these words will be some that we will look back upon:


Spliting the vote during the 2008 Presidential Primaries so that RINO Rudy becomes the GOP candidate... $0.000002cents in internet bandwidth on USACarry.Com

Having to swallow the nasty pill that the Liberal Dem really wanna see you swallow on Nov 7 2008... $3.00/gallon to drive to the polls

Watching Billary Clinton swear in as the 44th President of the US because you didn't get behind the most electable GOP candidate during the primaries... PRICELESS

The oldest Conservative Justice (Justice John Paul Stephens retires) February 2008, Hillary appoints a Liberal SCJ to the bench... Your coveted 2nd Amendment Rights!
 
Last edited:

Bohemian

New member
The Hypocrisy of Fred Thompson on Gun Control...

After voting for the Gun-Free-Shool Zones Act in 1996...

Fred Thompson in 2007 said when speaking of the Virginia Tech massacre, he said: "Whenever I've seen one of those 'Gun-free Zone' signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago."
 

doublenutz

New member
As I if I have not been preaching this OVER and OVER.

Found this article in a Liberal Dem website "The Huffington Post" (keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/note-to-liberal-hillaryb_b_65770.html

headshot.jpg
Martin Lewis| BIO |


Note to liberal Hillary-bashers: It's The SCOTUS, Stupid!

Posted September 25, 2007 | 10:25 AM (EST)



1) I don't know who the Democratic Presidential candidate next year is going to be.


2) I don't know yet who I personally want it to be. I'm still considering. But my view really doesn't matter for the purpose of this column.

3) I DO know that I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is. If it's Dennis Kucinich or Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama or John Edwards. Or any of the other contenders. Over a Republican? There is NO debate. Nor should there be.

4) I do know that practically the only thing that can defeat the Democrats next year will be the selfish, self-destructive attitude of idealists on the left who are threatening sabotage if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

5) I have heard all the arguments and self-righteous (self-lefteous?) diatribes against Hillary on any number of topics. Corporatist... DLC... Panderer... all of that. And people who have said that there would be "no difference" between Hillary and any Republican candidate.

6) Here's the thing. Even if all those accusations against Hillary ARE true (and this post is NOT the place to debate the merits of those arguments) - that would STILL not make a difference to my intent to support her if she is the candidate.

7) And it shouldn't make a difference to any other voters who are Democrats, left-leaning, liberal, progressive or independent. For one overwhelming reason. That trumps any disappointments about votes in 2002, health-care details, triangualation, corporate ties, Iraq policy, etc etc

8) IT'S THE SCOTUS, STUPID!
The Supreme Court Of The United States.
9) Starting January 2009 there will be a four-year period where SIX of the Supreme Court members will be in their 70s, 80s and 90s.
10) FOUR of those six are dependable guardians of our rights. And the fifth is a swing voter.
11) The two oldest Supreme Court Justices will be 92 and 79 respectively by the end of the next Presidential term. And those two are John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
12) If you want to know why you MUST support WHOEVER the Democratic candidate is - then just study the actuarial tables on life expectancy.
13) The simple fact is that there is a very high probability that the next president may appoint at least two new Supreme Court Justices. And probably more. And the laws of statistics say that the first two justices to be replaced will be two of the most dependable votes for decency.
14) If you seriously believe that it makes no difference in how this nation is governed over the next 30 years if those two justices are conservative or liberal - then there is no hope for your soul or sanity.
15) If you seriously believe that in regard to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices - that it makes no difference between Hillary Clinton on the one hand - and Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John McCain or even Newt Gingrich on the other hand - then you are seriously beyond redemption.
16) It doesn't matter WHAT you may dislike about Hillary Clinton - or whoever the Democratic candidate is. If you have any regard for the future of this nation - you will remember this.

It's the SCOTUS, stupid.
'nuff said. Case over. Dismissed.
 

Bohemian

New member
Huckabee ahead in polls, now tier one candidate...
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/...nh_and_sc_and_huckabee_ascending_with_gop.php

Huckabee Continues to Make Impressive Gains in Polls, Ahead of McCain, Level with Thompson in Iowa
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1907103/posts

Mike Huckabee is the Republican Iowans Have Been Waiting For
Link Removed

Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul Were Clear Winners, Mitt Romney Was a Loser, Fred Thompson, even bigger loser...
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ames-straw-poll-results.html
 

Bohemian

New member
Found this article in a Liberal Dem website "The Huffington Post" (keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/note-to-liberal-hillaryb_b_65770.html

There is somebody to take stock in...Martin Lewis, ultra liberal, left wing nut job...

One of the biggest left-wing propaganda spewers on the planet...

Policy Positions, proven leadership ability and a proven track record on the issues (especially the constitution and the 2nd amendment) by the republican candidate winning the primary will send Billary Clinton home in a bigger defeat then Kerry-Edwards 2004...

People will be coming out of the woodwork just to vote against Billary...

She scares the crap out of people...
 

doublenutz

New member
Huckabee Continues to Make Impressive Gains in Polls, Ahead of McCain, Level with Thompson in Iowa
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1907103/posts

Mike Huckabee is the Republican Iowans Have Been Waiting For
Link Removed

Dude, I like that Free Republic website... it's the first time I been to it (bookmarked it). However the other site "electionpolls2008" pretty much says to some degree what I have been saying, which is- Huckabee is not electable. Not becuase he is not a fabulous candidate but because ... well heres the article you sent us to-

Mike Huckabee is the Republican Iowans Have Been Waiting For

8/18/07
Summary: Mike Huckabee has a bump in post-debate polls then drops back down after voters question his viability. With Huckabee's strong second place performance at the Ames Straw Poll, his viability will no longer be questioned by Iowa voters. Look for a surge in the upcoming polls.

Empirical Observations Suggest Voters Want Huckabee But Unsure if He Can Win

There is no doubt in our minds that Mike Huckabee is fighting against the "He can't win" label. Just look at his poll numbers, they go up whenver he is in the national spotlight (i.e. after a debate) but then they come right back down.
The reasons poll numbers drop for a lower tiered candidate like Huckabee is because people see that he is behind Romney, Giuliani, McCain, F. Thompson. His lower tiered status and aura of "can't win" precludes them from voting for him even though they may want to. This phenomenon leads to an up and down roller coaster ride to his poll numbers where voters want to vote him in but then change their minds after seeing disappointing poll numbers.
We understand the polling methods
 

doublenutz

New member
People will be coming out of the woodwork just to vote against Billary...

She scares the crap out of people...

So you are pretty confident that the GOP has got 2008 locked up.

Because if its not Billary then it is Osama Obama and I am one brother that not voting for that one.
 

Bohemian

New member
should have read further...
Huckabee and Ron Paul soared above all expectations and are on the way up...

There is no doubt in our minds that Mike Huckabee is fighting against the "He can't win" label. Just look at his poll numbers, they go up whenever he is in the national spotlight...

I like Mike
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
 

doublenutz

New member
should have read further...
Huckabee and Ron Paul soared above all expectations and are on the way up...

There is no doubt in our minds that Mike Huckabee is fighting against the "He can't win" label. Just look at his poll numbers, they go up whenever he is in the national spotlight...

I like Mike
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

OK Boh Bro, I am gonna run with ya up to the primaries and keep a close eye on your guy Mike. I am still pretty Pro-FRED but I need to give Mike a real good lchance and ook see... hows that for narrowing down the scope of candidates we should be working together on. But how about you coming a bit closer too FRED with me... come now you don't really believe he is a "sell out" do ya?

However, Ron Paul...absolutely NO FRIGGIN WAY! He has got issues in other areas that I simply can't git wit.
 

Bohemian

New member
So you are pretty confident that the GOP has got 2008 locked up.

lets see Barack Obama bio; my 18 months in politics as a Jr. Senator...
I supported prosecution of citizens whom shot robbers in their homes...

I have no doubt that Hillary will win her parties nomination...

And body two steps to the right of Hillary on policy will blow her out of the water...

The left can not even keep a radio station on the air, no listeners = no sponsors; their diatribe has nearly run its course, their base is floundering and they know it...

People are finally beginning to see them for what they are...

We must stand behind the strong proven conservative that is Mike Huckabee...
I Like Mike:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
 
Last edited:

Bohemian

New member
On Ron Paul, I would vote for him if he won the primary, not before...

Although, Ron Paul is fearless and has never backed down from a republican, democrat or otherwise when it comes to the constitution or the second amendment...

I too have a huge problem with Ron Paul's position on the proactive approach to terrorism; homeland security and others...

I do not support segregating the United States from the rest of the world and fighting terrorist's on U.S. soil when we can take it to them first...

Americans do not cut and run - Charlton Heston., et.al.
 

HK4U

New member
If it comes down to Rudy or Hell ery I will vote 3rd party or not at all. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evil's is still evil and when you start playing that game you are never really sure which is the lesser.
 

ebrinton

New member
lesser of two evils

If it comes down to Rudy or Hell ery I will vote 3rd party or not at all. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evil's is still evil and when you start playing that game you are never really sure which is the lesser.

I agree with you if you really think that Rudy and Hillary are equally evil. In that case you might as well vote for a 3rd party. This, in reality, would have the same result as if you weren't voting at all, which wouldn't matter since you wouldn't care which evil won anyway.

However, if one is a lesser evil, I think it is better to vote for him/her than for a 3rd party. While it may seem like voting for a 3rd party would be the moral thing to do, in reality it would only be helping the greater of the two evils (by depriving the lesser evil of a vote). Therefore, voting for a 3rd party has the exact same outcome as voting for the greater of two evils.

And no, voting for a 3rd party would not be "making a statement," because even if that 3rd party got 2% of the vote instead of 1%, no one would even take notice.

My conclusion regarding the Republican primaries is that a vote for anyone other than Fred Thompson is a vote for Rudy. Fred is the only one who can, in reality, beat Rudy. Say Rudy got 45% of the vote, Fred got 43% of the vote, and the rest combined got 12% of the vote. It is most likely that Fred would have at least gotten 8 of the 12%, and would therefore have beaten Rudy 51% to 49%. So, once again, you would have basically voted for Rudy.

I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments, but these are just some of my thoughts.
 

HK4U

New member
Third party

I agree with you if you really think that Rudy and Hillary are equally evil. In that case you might as well vote for a 3rd party. This, in reality, would have the same result as if you weren't voting at all, which wouldn't matter since you wouldn't care which evil won anyway.

However, if one is a lesser evil, I think it is better to vote for him/her than for a 3rd party. While it may seem like voting for a 3rd party would be the moral thing to do, in reality it would only be helping the greater of the two evils (by depriving the lesser evil of a vote). Therefore, voting for a 3rd party has the exact same outcome as voting for the greater of two evils.

And no, voting for a 3rd party would not be "making a statement," because even if that 3rd party got 2% of the vote instead of 1%, no one would even take notice.

My conclusion regarding the Republican primaries is that a vote for anyone other than Fred Thompson is a vote for Rudy. Fred is the only one who can, in reality, beat Rudy. Say Rudy got 45% of the vote, Fred got 43% of the vote, and the rest combined got 12% of the vote. It is most likely that Fred would have at least gotten 8 of the 12%, and would therefore have beaten Rudy 51% to 49%. So, once again, you would have basically voted for Rudy.

I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments, but these are just some of my thoughts.

The reason a 3rd part can not get elected is because the two headed monster we have in place, I will call it the Republicrates, tells us so over and over. As long as we continue to elect a candadate form their ranks only we will continue to get a president that marches to the tune of the New World Order Crowd. That is why no matter who is in office the national debt continues to go up and our freedoms slowly disapear.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,434
Messages
623,592
Members
74,268
Latest member
zyvaaprilia
Top