© 2001-2009 Perish the Thought Associates. Contents are the property of contributors. If you steal anything, we WILL hunt you down and hurt you.
|
 |
Several prominent bloggers have begun to chide MSM for its "unfair" (based on some perverted standard not applicable to officially declared candidates) criticism of the unofficial, yet awfully-official-sounding campaign of good ole Fred Thompson.
Heck -- no need for ole Fred to invest in another pickup. He's already getting a free ride on the MSM express! And his wishful thinkin' blogging corps are gettin' awfully riled up when anyone dares to criticize ole unofficial, albeit, almost-official Fred.
No matter that the most criticized Republican candidate has been Mitt Romney.
Obviously it's "ok" to criticize Mitt.
After all [enter sarcasm zone], the premises behind Mitt's character, professional profile and achievements, his candidacy and his qualifications are hard to believe [exit sarcasm zone] ....
1) Mitt's Mormon (if you hadn't heard); thus, he doesn't have to fake his spirituality.
2) Mitt's served as a successful conservative governor in one of the most liberal states in the nation. He doesn't have to qualify his lack of legislative achievement with "...but look at what I voted against!"
3) Mitt has un-matched business-sense and proven organizational successes; he won't have to worry about political appointments or political paybacks when implementing his management team. And you can bet his administrative advisors and staff won't consist of a montage of who-was-who-in-the-70's-and-80's.
4) Mitt voluntarily assumed leadership of the post-9/11 Olympics when others shirked from national service -- and in the face of disaster, he coordinated global support, comprehensive anti-terrorism security and salvaged financial success from bankruptcy and corruption.
5) Mitt has proven experience and sound policies on issues which Americans rank as critical in our next Administration: enforcing current immigration laws, expanding national security, implementing realistic state-level health care programs, ensuring economic stability and growth on the national and global fronts, addressing the Middle East dilemma, maintaining American sovereignty and strengthening traditional American values.
But don't take my word for it. Venture beyond the headlines.
And don't blame everything "hypocritical" on MSM, liberals or Mitt's potential democrat opponents. The announced (and unannounced) conservative candidates are also well-schooled in hypocrisy ....
Posted at 08:46 am by Gull
 | | | Walter from Massuhchewsits
July 8, 2007 11:59 AM PDT
I love Mitt Romney. It's sad to see how the hypocrits demean him. He's the ONLY candidate to put his own money where his mouth is, so to speak. All the other candidates are earning their keep at public (legal and illegal) expense.
Gooooo Mitt! We need a person of honor and integrity to restore the same in DC.
| |
| | | BBartlett
July 8, 2007 12:16 PM PDT
I read your blog regularly, and have a question concerning your support for Mitt.
Several of your links are to sites that support other conservative candidates, namely FDT as he wants to be called. Do you not receive the cold shoulder because you're about the only site that openly supports Mitt Romney?
I admire your outspokenness and choice, by the way.
| |
| | | Gull
July 8, 2007 12:37 PM PDT
BB,
As long as my link-associates don't attempt to abuse/mis-represent my support for mutual causes WITH their support for Fred or John or Rudy, etc., I have absolutely no problem being associated with issues that Mitt has addressed.
Just because my link-associates are temporarily misguided about which candidate has the most viable and realistic policies for America's welfare -- I'll let them enjoy their fling with the likes of Fred, Rudy, John, etc.
And I promise not to be arrogant or cruel when they finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.
After all -- the conservative umbrella MUST remain strong and broad, accepting and inclusive because the alternative is totally unacceptable.
| |
| | | Gull
July 8, 2007 12:39 PM PDT
------ I mean't to also say, to Walter and BB -----
Thanks for visiting!!! We must continue to voice our support for Mitt Romney. | |
| | | wondering
July 8, 2007 01:59 PM PDT
Do think criticizing a candidate's family is fair?
| |
| | | Gull
July 8, 2007 02:47 PM PDT
No. criticizing an "innocent" family member is low brow, imo.
If relatives have a role in the political actions of the candidate and if their behaviors distract from the candidate's platform -- such as Fred Thompson's lobbyist sons or their involvement with NAU promotions or Hillary Clinton's brother accepting bribe money for "getting" b-i-l Bill to pardon a scumbag, etc. -- those individuals have an impact on the candidates' and/or political figures' actions and are newsworthy.
Chelsa's employment should be no one's concern -- unless she or her employer directly impact Hillary's campaign. Regardless of her age or looks -- Fred's wife should be off-limits until she takes an active role in his campaign. And then, criticism should deal only with what she says and does ....
Prime example: Teresa Heinz should have stuck to smiling and selling katsup and stayed away from the mic/camera.
Algore's son's drug problems should not become an issue for Algore's global warming platform.
If I were interested in rekindling my own memories of driving CA freeways -- I might blog about how some kid got a hybrid to run 100 + mph on a CA freeway. Traffic flow amidst limos and SUVs alone defy that reality. Why you'd have to be stoned outta your mind to even consider driving a tin can that fast on those freeways ..... Now THAT could be a storyline, but not for the same reason some choose to write about it.
| |
| | | chickenheart
July 8, 2007 02:52 PM PDT
Don't you think all political campaigns stoop to hypocrisy?
| |
| | | Gull
July 8, 2007 03:02 PM PDT
It's easy to make that generalization, but when links can be traced by who-said-what-and-when, it's not a generalization.
What I really think is that slant and bias are easier to "prove" than hypocrisy.
It's hard to prove that Hillary's staff (for example) might have planted the nasty comments about Fred's wife while concurrently defending Chelsa high-paying job with a Clinton supporter ..... It's much easier to see that whoever wrote about Fred's wife was biased.
| |
| | | Gull
July 8, 2007 03:08 PM PDT
As for hypocrisy in campaigns (to continue) ----
Hillary was more than being two-faced when she criticized Bush for granting Libby clemency while her brother and hubby conspired to grant presidential pardons for pay!!!!
Go ahead -- try to convince me that ole Shrillary wasn't aware of what/who was pinging those parole payoffs. | |
| | | Curious
July 8, 2007 09:24 PM PDT
Gull, why do you dislike Fred Thompson? I really want to know.
Thanks. | |
| | | Gull
July 8, 2007 09:43 PM PDT
Fair question, Curious. I thought I had answered it in previous posts, but I'll try again.
I don't "dislike" Fred Thompson. I simply don't trust him. I feel that he is jerking conservatives around and taking advantages of loopholes in campaign "testing" to decide if there really really REALLY is a chance he could win.
He does not have a "healthy" record as a public servant -- assuming that's what candidates aspire to be. He recently said on the Leno show something to the effect "I don't necessarily want to run for President, I just want to do some things that only the President can do."
That attitude did not sit well with me and is another reason I don't believe he is serious about this process.
Other reasons include his lobbying background and his role in setting up his sons as lobbyists. I don't trust him. I also don't trust his role on the Council of Foreign Relations. I don't want anyone as POTUS who actually believes that the key to our national security is the NAU --- I'd love to have the opportunity to ask questions about his role, his support and his beliefs in the purpose and function of a NAU. I want to know if he supports the super corridor and how he intends to protect American borders or even if he honestly believes borders are important to our security AND economy. I want to know how he feels about China, the ME, the economy and what he will do to promote the US on every level of global affairs.
I don't trust a man who answers a direct question with a quip or some cutsie southern retort. I don't want a man or woman as POTUS who can't articulate clear and understandable expectations in his role as leader of the greatest nation on this earth.
Fred Thompson just doesn't match that criteria. He did little to nothing in Congress and has spent his most productive life in front of a camera with a script.
Plus -- the man does not look healthy. I don't know whether it's his age, his lack of make-up or his fight against cancer. I don't want a president who can't give 110% to the office. Fred may not be able to do that. His history indicates strongly that he's never been one to give something his all, anyway.
The presidency is not a intern position. It requires proven leadership and clear direction. Fred is a nice guy, but nice guys don't always finish first -- the clintons will make mince meat of him -- once the media finishes with him, that is.
| |
| | | Doc
July 13, 2007 06:27 PM PDT
I wish Duncan Hunter was popular enough to get chided by the mainstream media. Or praised. Or at least noticed. | |
| | | Stephanie
July 14, 2007 09:59 PM PDT
Great website!
Check out this new country his song that is exploding on youtube with 4 million hits in just a month.
"Press One For English"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJfS1v-fU0 | |
|
