Saturday, June 16, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:13 PM
In the election cycle that has been underway this incredibly early part of 2007, I have had a chance to shake the hands and speak personally with all of the presidential candidates.
I have to say in the early going, and largely due to a few factors - his defense of marriage in Massachusetts, his stunning credentials and record of CEO success, and because of my good friend's great book "A Mormon in the White House" by Hugh Hewitt - I was leaning strongly Romney.
Here on TownHall, Dean Barnett has challenged all of us to articulate clearly who we are supporting so that we have the most honest debate possible. He said so, and then immediately proclaimed his loyalty to fellow New Englander - Mitt Romney.
Matt Lewis has not fully endorsed John McCain but he has definitely been faithful to keep some of us more anti-McCain cranks honest about the facts of Senator Cranky.
Patrick Ruffini has openly admitted his connection to the Rudy 2008 campaign and in doing so is benefitting TownHall readership by giving us a perspective that would more than likely be absent were he not to do so.
I have never done so in a campaign cycle - certainly never this early - but I am proud to announce that today (really as of mid-day yesterday) I am an eagerly, enthusiastic, anticipatory supporter of Fred Thompson. I have leaned his direction ever since first hearing the possibility but had to tell myself that focusing on the declared candidates was the reality - everything else just speculation.
I believe Thompson will win for a variety of reasons. He understands technology, and the total scope of the blogosphere in a far more superior way to any of the rest of the candidates. But he has also not abandoned the gray hairs - of which there are far more of than ever before for an election cycle in America. He's gone from last place to tied for first without spending any money - and behind the laid back calm gentile facade is a fierce defender of America.
So I figured - why hide it anymore. I'm a Fred-head. So yes - the Musclehead blog will have a Fred-bias to it - as the Hewitt blog has a Mitt-bias, and as the Medved blog as an Amnesty-bias. The important thing is that we are honest about the views from which we are coming from and allow you the TownHall reader to examine our rationale for itself.
So what pushed me over the edge? Well, Fred has had some bang-up speeches and television appearances. He's written a weekly column for us here on TownHall bringing his common sense directly to us, and in doing so he's eliminated a lot of the filters by which messages can usually get mangled. He also speaks so that everybody in the room can understand - and funny enough according to the poll numbers - they do. I do look forward to seeing Fred in the debates and when he arrives, look for him to shoo away the attacks of the others with the ease that he puffed cigar smoke into the face of Michael Moore.
But if you really have to know what pushed me from Mitt to Fred: National Right To Life 100% rating... and the rest of what he says in this video to the NRLC that met in Washington last night.
Plain speak on life, culture, and terror... He is unequivocal - and none of the others are.
HOW REFRESHING!
|
If you want to do Thompson a big favor. Start that video clip of Thompson on a better frame. It looks awful. It really reinforces many of the Thompson negatives. |
|
At this point, my vote is his to lose.
There's a long way to go before the primaries, but so far I'm convinced that Fred is the one to not only beat hillary, but who also has the Conservative principles that we need to return to, and fight the WOT.
Besides, after Fred's 38second video to Michael-The-Moron in response to Michael's debate challenge about Cuba's healthcare (which, by the way, was BRILLIANT!) I can hardly wait to see him "dismiss" hillary exactly as he "dismissed" Michael-The-Moron. It was truly a beautiful thing!
I believe this country is ready for a "what you see is what you get" president, and I believe that Fred D. Thompson is the man! :-)
|
|
The problem for me with Mitt Romney is that I don't know where he really stands on the issues because he has changed his position on many things. I don't know if I believe what he says. For example, he can't even decide whether to campaign in English, or Spanish! Mitt says, "We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants."
For those who still support Mitt Romney:
Please tell me how a Spanish version website makes America more attractive for citizens? And less attractive for illegal immigrants?
Explain to me why "We need to make America more attractive..." for any immigrant?
Doesn't Freedom and Liberty make America attractive enough?
Please explain to me why Mitt Romney is the only Republican Candidate for President with a Spanish version website, including a video of his son speaking Spanish?
Explain to me who the Spanish website is for?
Is it for Legal "Mexican-Americans" that can't understand English and have nobody they know who can translate an English-only website for them?
Is this for the millions of "Mexican-Americans" that can't understand English, or for those who refuse to learn English because they don't want to assimilate into American Culture?
Talk about misleading people! Mitt Romney says one thing in English and another in Spanish. Have you even read the Spanish version? All that's missing is the Mexican flag! If you are an immigrant that can't read English and you didn't know anyone who could translate for you, then you would have to read his Spanish version and you would get the impression that he was a "friend" of illegal-immigrants! You might even be lead to believe that he would give illegal-aliens amnesty like President Reagan did. Wouldn't that be nice! (Those immigrants loved Reagan for that, and most of those people still can't speak English). Now who is misleading people? There is no other reason to have his Spanish version site! Tell me, why don't all the Candidates have a Spanish website? Why don't you just stop and think for yourself for one moment and consider that just maybe I am right?
Are you really going to sit there and tell me that Mitt Romney is in favor of English first, that he is really going to require immigrants to learn English, and that he wants all immigrants to assimilate into American culture? If so, he sure is setting a poor example and giving immigrants no incentive or any reason to learn English.
I live here in Phoenix, Arizona on the front lines of a cultural invasion that too many Americans don't fully grasp yet. It's obvious that a Billionaire like Mitt Romney doesn't understand the burdens in my State (of Arizona) of having the American culture over-run by a Mexican culture.
The fact that Mitt has a website in Spanish makes him part of the problem and makes Ann Coulter's point (in her Townhall column) when she writes, "Americans display no evident desire to defend their culture, much less transmit it, and immigrants show no evident desire to adopt it." You should read that article!
When are you going to demand that your government fight for the American culture? We all came from immigrants at one time, and those immigrants learned English and embraced American culture! Something has changed. Is learning the language of America too much to ask? Can you really be an American if you won't learn the language that George Washington, John Adams, and all the Founding Fathers spoke? English!
There is nothing wrong with Legal immigration, I'm all for it, but what about assimilation? Aren't you sick of hearing "press 1 for English"? Why do you want a President that doesn't understand this basic point and what is happening to American culture! All I'm asking is that you take a step back and see what is happening to your country! Sixty years ago, your grandparents would not have tolerated what is happening now.
But Mitt Romney isn't the only one who thinks we need to change and "make America more attractive" for other cultures. So does the Mexican government!
If you believe that Mitt is so strong on securing the border, then why doesn't he just say that?
It's very simple! Why doesn't he say what Fred Thompson writes in his Townhall column: " We should scrap this 'comprehensive' immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders".
Why doesn't Mitt put that in Spanish on his website? Maybe because he doesn't really mean what he says.
Instead, Mitt claims to have a better "comprehensive" immigration plan. Where have we heard that before? Tell me why I should believe Mitt just because he says so!
I didn't write this to bash Mitt Romney. I wrote it for those who still support him, and to expose the truth so they will to go Mitt Romney's website and see for themselves. To see if they are as disgusted as I was that a Republican Candidate for President, who claims to be a Conservative, would pander to immigrants that don't want to assimilate... the same pro-amnesty people that we saw marching in America's streets while waiving the Mexican flag! I think that Mitt Romney saw all those pro-amnesty (Spanish speaking) marchers holding up the Mexican flag and chanting in Spanish and saw an opportunity to turn them into votes for himself. How can anyone really trust a guy that would act exactly like a slick politician would act? That's not what we need right now America. All I'm asking you Mitt Romney supporters is to compare and consider voting for Fred Thompson. We need Fred Thompson as President. Yes, I am a proud "Fred-Head" too!
Just think about it. Consider what Kevin McCullough is saying and why I am in agreement. Then, just maybe, you'll become a "Fred-Head" too! |
|
up endorsement of "Fred" instead of being a covert prapoganda machine.......Good for you.....But, I'm assuming that this is a Conservative blog site?.......And REAL conservatives want the TRUTH?....Here it is.
1. He voted yes to allow more foreign workers in to do farm work.....H-2A visas.
2. Voted yes to increase visas for foreign skilled immigrants.
3. Voted yes to restore food stamp benefits to immigrants.
4. Voted NO on banning Affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
5. Voted NO to issue trade sanctions against CHINA if found to have sold WMD.
6. Voted Yes to "Presidential Fast Track" trade agreements.
7. 1996 Voted Yes in favor of CHAIN MIGRATION and voted to remove higher fines imposed on businesses that hire illegals and tried to kill the volluntary pilot program for workforce verification.
8. 1997 Voted Yes to amnesty for one million illegal allien Nicaraugans.
9. 1998 Voted against worker safegaurds and voted Yes to allow employers to lawoff U.S. Citizens inorder to bring in foreigners.
0. 2000 Voted for a foreign worker bill with no "Anti-fraud" measures.
1. Voted yes to McCain/Fiengold.
2. Voted Yes to expand NAFTA in 1998.
3. Is a Councel On Foreign Relations Member!
4. Was a lobbyist for 20 years prior to becomming a Tenneessee Senator.
5. 2 Weeks ago endorsed by GGEORGE P. BUSH(The hispanic nephew of President Bush, and son of Jeb Bush)and is also helping Fred raise MONEY!
6. Fred's "Head of Economic Policy" is a Former member of the "Federal Reserve Board Of Governors", named Lindsey.
He is a GLOBALIST in the tradition of GWB, with a weak immigration record. But, like Bill Clinton, if enough people thinks that he is a hillbilly, he can con his way into the Whitehouse? See IMMIGRATION.COM for his voting record, or just vote for a real conservatrive(HUNTER/TANCREDO/HUCKABEE).........But have no acting to their credits! |
|
|
OK, but HUNTER, TANCREDO, and HUCKABEE aren't really getting any traction. Yes it's still early, but what if these three can't raise enough money to continue to the Primary? |
|
I like Fred Thompson, as a person. But he has never faced the challenge of governing in a state that is 85% democratic. He's never had the experience of Romney to tackle something like the Olympics or a state in serious financial straits.
The question is, if he was so interested in helping the country, why did he leave a position in which he could have done a tremendous amount of good -- the senate. What are his motivations to run for President? Is he furthering his acting career? Does he genuinely want to be President? Or is he just taking advantage of being in the lime-light?
I, for one, was not impressed with his response to Michael Moore. How do you crticized someone's movie about health care while puffing on a big cigar? I thought it was hypocritical.
What has Fred ever managed? What legislation did he ever originate? Why does he have a reputation for having been a playboy and a rather lazy senator? I'm sorry, I just don't see him as remotely qualified to be president.
I think he's basically a good person. But I don't see him as an energetic leader, or even a persuasive one. Given the voting record sited above by Roho, I now question his credentials. |
|
Novak on Fred...
"the American Conservative Union gave him a lifetime Senate voting rating of 86 percent. It would have been close to 100 percent but for his repeated votes supporting McCain's campaign finance reform. None of the Big Three has been as consistently conservative as Thompson on tax policy, national security and abortion." |
|
|
He has done a good job of cut and paste with talking points from conservative think tanks the last six months. In addition, to the previously commented record, he has opposed tort reform on numerous ocassions, and voted for federal health regulation (2001 Patients Bill of Rights). His ACU score is only average for a Republican Senator. For comparison purposes, Sam Brownback got a 94 rating. While Fred Thompson's rating was similar to Chuck Hagel and only 4 points better than McCain. |
|
I said on a thread a couple of weeks ago, that when Fred entered, and Conservatives got thoroughly disgusted at McShame and Gulliani, that Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney would duke it out for the nomination.
The thing is...either one of these guys is more qualified in my eyes than ANY Democrats. Look at the Democrat candidates...2 Freshman Senators and an ex-Senator -- hypocrite. Sure, Hunter and Huckabee are more conservative, but it doesn't look like they'll get a high enough percentage.
I say, if Romney gets the nod, the ticket should be Romney/Hunter or Romney/Huckabee. If Thompson wins, then Thompson/Hunter (Thompson already has the Southern vote. To double up the Southern vote with another Southerner would not be a good idea.)
These are very qualified men with impressive records -- especially Romney. Sure, their votes and records this or that way may not be 100% Conservative all of the time, but let's not make the same mistake as 2006, and stay home, to let the Democrat/Socialists take over.
Let's get behind the 2 strong Conservative candidates that are at or near the top of the ticket so far, and make your case for either one, and then RALLY BEHIND THE WINNER. WE CAN BE LIKE FRANCE IN THIS CASE, AND PICK THE WINNER FROM THE SAME PARTY, WHO'S MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THE PRESENT OCCUPIER OF THE PRESIDENCY; AND DEFEAT THE SOCIALIST CANDIDATE.
Positive support is what these candidates need. Make your case for either one, and be civil, and leave your best arguments for the Democrats. The masses need to be INFORMED as to how Socialistic these Dem candidates really are, and how we Conservatives don't want to head down the same road as Old Europe. |
|
I have serious problems with him being part of a "drunken sailor spending Congress" and not taking a leadership stand and saying "Stop. Enough is enough. " I don't want someone who donates eggs to the fox raiding our hen house. Don't even get me started on NAFTA or McCain-Feingold. Talk about buying into a bill of goods, that is Fred. I love how Newt has been challenging the lack of Republican fiscal conservatism. I just wish Newt was not such a lightning rod. The good he did for this country with the Contract for America is still being reaped. I like Rightmindedmom's choice of Romney/Huckabee. I see the Democrat ticket as Hillery and Obama. We might see Romney/Condie Rice to oppose it. Black democrats are being appeased with Obama to bring back the black vote. Republicans have elevated more blacks with merit than Democrats have curried favor over. Oama is just the token that the Dems want on the ticket. A better model to sell to the voters than Jocelyn Elders.
Back to Fred, I do appreciate his service to our country, but I just do not see a leader, just an actor. I do not want to end up with a Gerald Ford (Thompson) when we can have a great communicator like Reagan (Romney). We made that mistake once and I hope as a party we learned our lesson. |
|
I have serious problems with him being part of a "drunken sailor spending Congress" and not taking a leadership stand and saying "Stop. Enough is enough. " I don't want someone who donates eggs to the fox raiding our hen house. Don't even get me started on NAFTA or McCain-Feingold. Talk about buying into a bill of goods, that is Fred. I love how Newt has been challenging the lack of Republican fiscal conservatism. I just wish Newt was not such a lightning rod. The good he did for this country with the Contract for America is still being reaped. I like Rightmindedmom's choice of Romney/Huckabee. I see the Democrat ticket as Hillery and Obama. We might see Romney/Condie Rice to oppose it. Black democrats are being appeased with Obama to bring back the black vote. Republicans have elevated more blacks with merit than Democrats have curried favor over. Oama is just the token that the Dems want on the ticket. A better model to sell to the voters than Jocelyn Elders.
Back to Fred, I do appreciate his service to our country, but I just do not see a leader, just an actor. I do not want to end up with a Gerald Ford (Thompson) when we can have a great communicator like Reagan (Romney). We made that mistake once and I hope as a party we learned our lesson. |
|
I'm not trying to slam or sully the character of Mitt. Rightmindedmom made some good points in that respect and I agree with her.
Having said that, several differences strike me between Fred and Mitt.
First, I trust the words of Fred more than I do Mitt and the fact that Mitt appears to be pandering to non-English speaking Americans on his web site as pointed out by another poster above gives me further reason to distrust Mitt on the illegal immigration issue. Don't believe just what people say ...actions speak louder than words.
Another major difference in my mind that gives Fred a major edge is that he has abundantly more 'gravitas' than Mitt! Although I think the MSM has made far more of that personal trait in the past than is deserved, it is an arsenal in their quiver of arrows that they won't be able to shoot at Fred ....accusing him of lacking in that commodity!
For these two reasons alone I believe Fred is much more electable in the general election for POTUS.
I'm not immune to being duped, fooled or even being outright wrong but I like to think I have a keen perception when it comes to observing the character and sincerity of others. It's more than just the words spoken. I perceive an abundance of clarity of thought and common sense conviction on the part of Fred Thompson that I don't see to this degree with any other Republican candidate. One more attribute I see in Fred is that he doesn't seem to be motivated by fame or fortune ....a trait for which he is criticized as being lazy.
Add to the above Fred's down-to-earth and plain speaking ability to define the issues we face as a nation and his unequivocal suggested solutions in resolving the problems of our day.
I think we can also make a case by the amount of hand-wringing and mud slinging, that's already been dished out by the libs and other wackos gives some evidence as to whom they 'fear' the most!
|
|
|
Just in case it somehow had slipped your mind, I'd like to remind you that Ronald Reagan also was mis-aligned as being just an actor! |
|
I also used to like Newt a lot but was recently extremely disappointed in his giving credence to the global warming hoax, in a debate on the subject. My trust in his judgement on such an important and consequence ridden issue has fallen drastically after that revelation. It's not as if he made that assertion years ago before there was any contrary evidence to discredit the ludicrous proposition from those on the loony left, including Algore, Michael Moore, and the other Hollywood elitists.
But more than all that, Newt has just too high of a negative opinion from the public at large to be electable as POTUS! It's that simple!
|
|
|
Sure he's a great communicator and seems like a nice guy, but what makes him stand above the rest? I just don't see that Fred has enough qualifications compared to the other candidates - especially Romney. When you compare their resumes it's laughable. |
|
|
CHOICE is wrong, in politics, love, and everything else! I love NEWT to death and planned to vote on him untill I went to BETTERIMMIGRATION.COM and nearly barfed when I saw his voting record when Immigration was not even a hot topic. Fred has past immigration votes that are about as bad. He even voted against Clinton's Impeachment, which I agree with Ann Coulter deserves some explaining! And then last week he appears on Jay Leno and says,"Debates denigrate the office of the job"........What?...We have been having debates for 2 centuries!........He is a Bush Globalist as is Romney,McCain,and Guiliani. His ability to raise a large amount of money to quickly did not come from Grandmothers with cash in their coffee cans!............HUNTER and TANCREDO are broke because nobody owns them yet! Something like 77% of their doners are $200. or less.(See OPENSECRETS.ORG)to see which industries own which politicians. In the middle of a Presidential Campain, TANCREDO managed to get a bill through the house BANNING SANCTUARY CITIES FROM RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING!.............He works!.....Just like HUNTER is still fighting the President for his 800 miles of fences that was HIS bill! I voted for GWB twice!.......And never,never, again will I vote based on what somebody tells me that they are going to do. I want to know, "HOW HAVE YOU VOTED IN THE PAST!"....Most are Bush Globalist of the highest order. Biden,McCain,Fred, are all CFR members, and I suspect Guiliani and Romney are as well. I intend to vote on a LEGITEMATE CONSERVATIVE, if I have to vote third party...........And if "CORSI" runs on the Constitution Ticket, nobody will want to debate him!........But, we don't need to throw HUNTER and TANCREDO away this early in a long cycle. |
|
Trading Romney for Thompson? Why bother? They are equally boring, uninspiring and insipid.
The GOP has got to do better than this, or start working on saying "Madame President" very soon. |
|
|
IT ALSO HURTS IF YOU FIND OUT THAT YOUR CHOICE CAN'T RAISE ENOUGH MONEY TO STAY IN THE RACE! I'd vote for Hunter... if he makes it! "I feel your pain" but if you end up voting for a third party, you may as well take Ellen's advice (above this post). Right, Madame President! |
|
|
for granted in each election, and moved farther, and farther to the left.(There are Dems to the right of Rudy)They have been able to do this by using "Fear Tactics" of "But what if Hillary gets elected!" And then they do what they wish,(Immigration)and tell the voter that put them in, to bug off! If we conservatives can't send a signal of demanding a conservative, then where does conservatism go?.........4 years of Hillary will not be the end of the world, but it will help the GOP understand that the conservative base WILL migrate to a 3rd party if ignored. Otherwise, they can go down the road of the whigs that they replaced! I'm a conservative by choice, and a republican by circumstance. NOTHING will destroy conservatism faster than a bad immigration policy with amnesty!......If conservatives fail to make it a priority issue, we will be singing the national anthem in spainish within a decade............GLOBALIST don't care how you sing it as long as they have their cheap labor. |
|
Kevin,
Thank you for dropping Mitt. As a born again Christian I cannot support a Mormon. Mormonism is nothing more that a cult who denies the Deity of Jesus Christ. I still think we should give Mike Huckabee a chance because he is a born again Christian. If it were between Huckabee and Fred Thompson, out of my reverence for my Lord and Savior I would have to go with Huckabee, because he asserts that he is a born again Christian and I have never heard Fred Thomspon state that. I must admit that I do find myself more drawn to Thompson, but I will support Huckabee if he becomes a front runner on that basis. People think the most important issue of our time is terrorism, but that is only a symptom of the bigger issue: our society's denial of Jesus and the one true living God. If we get that in order, everything else will fall in order. |
|
|
You obviously don't know Mormon theology. You should get the facts before you post. |
|
|
|
|
|
I notice you direct me to a couple of non-mormon sites to get mormon theology. Why is that. Why not go to one of their sites or just ask one of them?
After all if I wanted to know what you believe should I ask kitty? |
|
Oh hey, here is one of their sites.
http://www.lds.org
Oh and BTW, they do believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. |
|
|