Go on. Guess.
–
…
–
Yup, it’s McCain. The Maverick, showing less-than brilliant political acumen, is proudly boasting the endorsement on his official site. Because everybody knows the Republican base holds the Times in the highest esteem.
–
…
–
Yup, it’s McCain. The Maverick, showing less-than brilliant political acumen, is proudly boasting the endorsement on his official site. Because everybody knows the Republican base holds the Times in the highest esteem.
–
A note to disaffected Fredheads: your choice is this or Mitt (unless Rudy & Huck bounce back…and we know how great they’d be!). Is there really any question anymore?
Conservative Standards 
Actually there’s a third choice, it’s called sticking to your principles. The reality is there could still be a brokered convention depending on the outcome of Super Tuesday. And we all know who virtually everyone’s second choice is.
LikeLike
And my principles are comfortable with Romney’s character and the conservative platform on which he’s running. Do you really want me to rehash why Thompson never had monopoly on “principles,” in terms of both conservatism and character? I think broken-record syndrome is starting to kick in…Ah, the brokered convention dreams. What’s the scenario: Fred says “just kidding!” and jumps back in after being satisfied that his mother’s condition has improved? Or does Fred Fever sweep the nation and effectively re-draft him back into the race?With all due respect, this desperate refusal to come to terms with Thompson’s dropout strikes me as both delusional and childish. Sean Hackbarth himself is urging Fredheads to take a more sober look at things (http://www.theamericanmind.com/2008/01/24/its-over-2/). It was my impression that one of Thompson’s appeals was that he meant what he said. He said he was out. Ergo, he meant it.If Thompson didn’t really mean it, then that means he’s screwing with the hopes and minds of his supporters. If he did mean it, then it’s over, and it’s high time his followers quit pouting and decide where to go from here.
LikeLike
The difference is your willing to compromise conservative principles whereas I’m willing to tell the establishment I’ve had enough of candidates who aren’t conservative. You on the other hand are willing to let the GOP continue with the same old broken playbook. Mitt at this point hasn’t proven anything more than talking the talk.As for a brokered convention even Santorum has said it’s a real possibility if McCain doesn’t win Florida.Sean is entitled to his opinion just like the rest of us quite frankly that’s the beauty of America.
LikeLike
Y’know, as I’ve been holding Thompson to the scrutiny his followers weren’t interested in over the course of his candidacy, I’ve tried to keep in mind that many Fredheads were idealists who wanted a conservative, and genuinely believed their candidate’s “consistent conservative” mantra. But the infernal insistence most of you have on this hypocritical, holier-than-thou whitewash of Thompson’s record comes awfully close to my breaking point.And then, on top of that, to accuse ME of compromising conservatism? How dare you?The truth is, supporting Thompson would have required compromising conservative principles, too, and equally troubling, it would have required rewarding multiple dishonorable acts on your standard-bearer’s part. Let’s recap:– Opposition to the Human Life Amendment: Thompson doesn’t want our Constitution to protect the basic right to life of the unborn– Opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment– (What’s that, you say? Fred opposes those because of his staunch devotion to federalism? Well, Thompson’s brand of federalism (which throws the unborn to the wolves) somehow didn’t prevent him from supporting the big-government tendencies of No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, or a federal ban on state & local Internet tax policy. Sounds fishy to me.)– Taking Planned Parenthood’s money to lobby the government to relax abortion restrictions, then lying about it until faced with the documentary proof – Moving his once-liberal positions (some very recent) on No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, abortion, and immigration to the right (which I welcome), yet hypocritically criticizing Mitt Romney for doing the same thing, and falsely claiming to be “consistent” in his conservatism– Determining that the crimes of Bill Clinton did not warrant impeachment (a real profile in courage there!)– Telling the demonstrable lie that Romney “ran to the left” of Ted Kennedy in 1994Please, spare me the crap about Thompson’s sainthood. I’ve had enough of it.As I’ve said before, I understand why people will have reservations about Mitt Romney’s conversions, and though I believe his record & explanations have earned him the benefit of the doubt, I’m not about to disparage those concerns. But that respect is a two-way streak, and I’m not inclined to take your complaints seriously when you don’t care that Thompson is guilty of the same things, and more.In his first political campaign (1994, Kennedy), he ran—in Massachusetts—on a solidly conservative platform (with the exception of abortion). For the most part, he’s been advocating the same conservative ideas ever since. The reputation for flawless personal integrity he’s established cuts against his image of a phony.Now he’s offering a platform of solid conservatism, from the right principles in national defense, a the defense of life and marriage, a commitment to originalist judges which has earned Judge Robert Bork’s trust, to a business background tailor-made for cutting DC down to size.Would a President Romney do everything conservatives want? No, but neither would President Thompson—and that didn’t stop any of you. More importantly, we have reason to be optimistic that he would do most of them.Maybe none of this will win you over; in fact, I’d be surprised if it did. But keep this in mind: if a divided & demoralized Right ends up throwing the nomination to John McCain, yours are the first feet at which I’ll lay the blame.
LikeLike