Not the most dynamic guy, but fairly cogent. And reasonably focused.

profitsbeard on June 9, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Compared to Bush’s incoherent way of communicating, Fred will be viewed as another great communicator.

And reasonably focused.

Tancredo/Hunter, preferably.

But, as a pragmatist, anything with teeth.

On top of that, fred? loses to Hillary and Barack in a head to head, where as Rudy whips them both. Double ouch!

fred? should go for it. He’s never gonna get the nomination (if he ever announces) because he has zero experience and no leadership skills. Maybe a couple more years in the Senate and President MITT! will invite him over to the White House to sit in the Oval Office chair for a few minutes? Maybe that will light a fire under freds? a$$?

4. nominate Fred

Mojave Mark on June 8, 2007 at 6:11 PM

You can’t. freddie boy, the lying faker, isn’t a candidate.

1. seal the border
2. detect, detain, and deport the illegals (the 3D’s)
3. take the fun out of hiring illegals through draconian fines for employers
4. nominate Fred

CliffHanger on June 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Yes. A strong party leadership would fix the whole mess.

You want to know what our biggest obstacle to victory is right now? It’s Republican Party leadership and it simply has to change! Now is the time for heads to roll (figuratively speaking, of course), and to remake the Party into something we can all be proud of and support.

We can’t because it’s all about money and most of the people do not get involved in primary politics. That leaves it to the power brokers and they put their money where it does the most good.

Right to some extent. In the primaries, it’s still one-person-one-vote. If we agree it’s primarily political base voters and activists who typically participate in primary elections, then it’s during this time that we have our best chance to nominate a real conservative to take on Hillary.

It’s this group of voters, that’s us, who shouldn’t be the least bit motivated or influenced by political power brokers and financiers, regardless of the scope of their investments in their pet candidates. We are disciplined. We are independent-minded. We are educated on the issues. We evaluate voting records, past leadership experience, proposed platforms and make our decisions based upon what’s most important to lead our nation.

And when the decision has been made and we have chosen our candidate to run against Hillary, that’s when the power brokers and financiers spring into action to convince John Q. Public thier candidate is the best choice. Question is, who will they support – our candidate or Hillary? Both, most likely, right?

People need to keep in mind that Hillary is a known quantity with high negatives among Americans. The notion that only a popular moderate politician like Guiliani or McCain can beat Hillary in the general election is off the mark and very premature, especially now that the majority of Americans hold an unfavorable view of our government’s performance and conservatives are just now beginning to prepare themselves for political battle.

Is it because many conservatives are placing Party above principle and want to support someone who we feel will win the general election?

That is how I feel about it. But I don’t feel that compromise is placing party over principle because I am a conservative before anything else. There is no such thing as a conservative democrat, so all that is left are the republicans. ANY republican is better than ANY democrat ANY minute of ANY day.

I thought we understood that most Americans, while not expressly political, are by-and-large conservative on most issues. If that’s the case, shouldn’t we at least be a bit less committal at this early stage and really perform our due-diligence to find the best candidate on the issues?

We can’t because it’s all about money and most of the people do not get involved in primary politics. That leaves it to the power brokers and they put their money where it does the most good.

I’m not throwing my full support behind a specific candidate just yet but from what I know today, Hunter seems like the best fit.

I don’t know the guy, but from what I have read and heard, I’d tend to agree.

With national security and border enforcement the top issues going into ‘08 and really firing up the base (a good thing, BTW), I think the door is wide open for anyone with the right record and the right message and a minimal amount of personal baggage.

I’d add experience and leadership as top priorities along with the qualities you listed. (which eliminates that lying fraud fred?)

We just need to find that next great leader of conservatism, support him/her to the max, and help America get to know him/her and the rest should take care of itself.

OK, you got the leadership in there.

I would say if conservative apathy still ruled the day like it did during the last election cycle, then it would make some sense to back a so-called moderate with already-established name recognition, however it’s a new ball game folks and we have a unique opportunity to re-invigorate the Reagan revolution.

CliffHanger on June 8, 2007 at 1:53 PM

That guy may very well be a candidate at this time. I think who ever it is will quietly work on his maoderate legislation, but will makes lots of noise and lots of progress on conservative values. As soon as the next Justice is seated, roe v. wade will be over turned. Immigration and the war on terror will also be big conservative values that are very important to the base.

Don’t laugh. I can hope can’t I? :-)

Is it because many conservatives are placing Party above principle and want to support someone who we feel will win the general election? I thought we understood that most Americans, while not expressly political, are by-and-large conservative on most issues. If that’s the case, shouldn’t we at least be a bit less committal at this early stage and really perform our due-diligence to find the best candidate on the issues?

I’m not throwing my full support behind a specific candidate just yet but from what I know today, Hunter seems like the best fit.

With national security and border enforcement the top issues going into ‘08 and really firing up the base (a good thing, BTW), I think the door is wide open for anyone with the right record and the right message and a minimal amount of personal baggage. We just need to find that next great leader of conservatism, support him/her to the max, and help America get to know him/her and the rest should take care of itself.

I would say if conservative apathy still ruled the day like it did during the last election cycle, then it would make some sense to back a so-called moderate with already-established name recognition, however it’s a new ball game folks and we have a unique opportunity to re-invigorate the Reagan revolution.

Friends, especially those who mean well for the country and for Fred, or anyone who’ll make it to the top – there will be no RR second coming, as we’re all unique. He was great, with flaws too, in a time when he was most needed. Now, we must allow each of these men to be/grow into their own.

Entelechy on June 6, 2007 at 12:19 AM

So, you are suggesting that these men acquire and sustain a state of entelecheia? ;-)

I think that there’s a few of them that are, and always have been, themselves. Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson. Romney may well turn into what he’s trying to become, but the past is still speaking with some volume in opposition. Rudy and McAmnesty wouldn’t know themselves if they hit themselves in the nose.

I would rather that Republicans got serious about promoting Duncan Hunter, who is both strong on borders and enforcement and the WOT — he has stayed in Congress and worked to make conservative principles been enacted into law.

Rudy and McCain will not get the conservative vote in the primaries and without that Republicans will not win.

I wonder if this means I get my brain back ?
Maxx on June 7, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Does it means he is still looking for his? :-)

What will we do ? Agree with Annie of course ! Ann is correct 100% of the time and she is absolutely correct about this too !

Maxx on June 6, 2007 at 3:07 PM

No offense, friend, but I’d gently suggest you re-evaluate whether its a good idea to insist that ANYBODY is 100% right 100% of the time.

If you truly believe that … yikes. No need for a brain then, huh? I think when AP used the term “Coulter-bot,” this is what he had in mind.

Professor Blather on June 6, 2007 at 4:14 PM

OK Professor, I’ll bite. And certainly… no offence taken to the mere accusal of not having a brain.

Now, please give me one… just one please, instance of Ann saying someting that you thought was wrong. I’m not saying I heard EVERYTHING Ann has ever said, but I believe I have heard most of it, so I’m betting I will be aware of whatever your example will be.

Please fire away.

Maxx on June 7, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Well…. its been more than twelve hours and no reply from the good Professor. I guess he didn’t have much bad to say about Coulter after all.

I wonder if this means I get my brain back ?

CSdeven has, told a lot of lies made a lot of intentional mischaracterizations been extremely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest

Wouldn’t want to mischaracterize your efforts there big guy…..Intellectual honesty being sooo very important to you and all.

CSdeven has, like the lovable but scroungy Toto, pulled the curtain on freddie boy to reveal him as a well intentioned guy, but still a faker hiding behind smoke, noise, and mirrors, pretending to be that which he is not.

So, rather than beat up Toto for simple being the messenger, the groupies should close theirs eyes and repeat the phrase….There’s no one like MITT!…There’s no one like MITT!……There’s no one like MITT!……and then pull that lever to take you back to the promised land.

:-)

I think I’ll wait to hear from the Islamists before I choose. Whomever they end up hating the most, or who they are the most afraid of, is most likely the candidate I’ll end up supporting.

I’ve already refuted every single one of cs’ dishonest assertion multiple times.