JUST SAY NO!
Posted on 08/16/2005 10:34:18 AM PDT by MikeA
And a RINO is FAR BETTER than Der Fuerher, Frau Hildabeast.
Yeah, that too.
If Pirro loses, those who stayed home will have no right to bitch if Hillary then becomes president.
That picture you posted is... Well, let's put it this way, it's gonna be a long time before I forgive you for that! ;)
voting for a Rino is like using toilet paper....
failing to vote is like using no paper.
You only have yourself to blame.
Yeah. SURE she's anti-tax and anti-crime. She hates taxes and spending almost as much as George Pataki. She hates crime so much that after she's finished grabbing everybody's LEGAL guns, she'll probably organize a midnight basketball program!
Doesn't the fact that she's liberal on EVERY litmus test issue but chooses a couple vague conservative themes even suggest to you the likelihood that she is simply a liberal?
Every liberal since Walter Mondale claims to be anti-tax. And every gun-grabbing Marxist claims the reason they want your guns is to fight crime. But you can tell where someone really stands by what issues they want to fight for. And how does Pirro want to fight crime? By taking guns away from honest citizens.
Sorry, I'd rather have Hillary in the Senate than Pirro. At least we can run a conservative against her next time.
I'm afraid it is a New York Republican...but then if she tears Hillary's hair out at its black roots....uh, blonde roots (her heart is black though), then I'm for Pirro getting the nomination even if she is a RINO.
"Sorry, I'd rather have Hillary in the Senate than Pirro. At least we can run a conservative against her next time.
A full-blown conservative can't win in a place like New York. Wake up. Not every state is the South.
And you'd rather have Hillary in the Senate and get 0% of what you want from her than say Pirro from whom you'd get at least 50%, likely much more, which includes by the way her ensuring a higher percentage of Republicans controlling the Senate committees and a reliable vote for Bush's judges? How incredibly short-sighted of you.
I agree--but do you really want to risk it?
I found both Kerry and Dean worse. Worse as in "I'd hate to have that guys finger on the button". I don't believe in giving up on whole states, especially ones as big as NY.
New York is not going to vote for a conservative republican for senator. That's a simple reality.
I think it behoves conservatives to run a strong candidate who espouses conservative values in the primary, at least. A free ride for a RINO because we fear Hillary is already giving her way more power than she has.
I never suggested they shouldn't run a conservative in the primary. But to hope one would win against Hillary is simply wrongheaded. I never said I LIKED Pirro. That's not what this is about. It's about what is, not what we would like.
If the policies are identical why vote for the lesser known newcomer?
To prevent HRC from getting a shot at the presidency. The argument that she won't win--which I happen to believe--doesn't mean we should just help her get closer to possible nomination. It's certainly not impossible for her to become the next president--why anyone would want to help her get there is simply beyond me.
Why not just keep Hillary instead of voting for Hillary light?
That's like saying "Why not let this guy beat me up instead of calling the police, because the next guy who comes along may have a gun!" Look at Pirro's record--tough on crime, against raising taxes. Now look at Hillary's record--she's ranked #1 (or #2) of senators who vote for tax raises. That's not reason enough for you?
Americans love celebrity and that helps 'the beast'. I think she would be harmed FAR MORE by an articulate real conservative who could begin bashing her on her political stands in the Senate race.
Anywhere else but New York. That's a basic fact you can't ignore.
While he might not convince enough New Yorkers to keep her out of the Senate the race will get plenty of national press and he might convince enough swing voters to irreperably harm her in the Pres race in '08.
You mean like the attacks on her by conservatives over the last 15 years have? What's the evidence of that?
The last attempt to fight Hillary "nice" was Rick Lazzio's disaster of a campaign. Let's not make the same mistake twice.
Who said anything about fighting her "nice"? She's been hit with everything we've got for 15 years and she's a definite condender in 2008--how is a victory over a conservative in 2006 going to change that?
Which would you rather have--a Hillary who beats a conservative in liberal New York, vistorious, praised by the media for "beating a conservative", in the senate voting for higher taxes, or Hillary politically vanquished, and replaced by someone who, whatever her flaws, is a definite improvement?
Dick Morris must have been reading FR again. I predicted that very senario in a FR post last week.
I respect Dick Morris, but I think his prediction is wrong. This woman wants to be president, and she'll do anything to get the job.
Rhode Island has a Conservative Republican Governor. Tennessee has a liberal 'Rat Governor. These kinds of generalizations are without substance.
Rhode Island has a Conservative Republican Governor. Tennessee has a liberal 'Rat Governor. These kinds of generalizations are without substance.
Oh come on, that is the exception rather than the rule in any of these kinds of places and you know it. Don't cite to me a rarity and claim it's indicative of the typical. You leave out the fact that there are other circumstances that may have lead to the election of anamolies like these you cite, such as a piss poor opponent or the economies of the states having been in such sorry condition even an unlikely political fit for the state could win. Additionally state issues like taxation can help to undermine the party in power, i.e. as in Tennessee. Governorships tend to be won or lost on LOCAL ISSUES much more than on ideology.
The same is NOT TRUE of Senate races where ideology and politics is MUCH MORE a determinant of who wins. Local conditions and issues are minor if non-existent in these kinds of races. You really cannot compare Senate races to governor's races. They're apples and oranges. Thus the reason a Republican can win the governorship in California but not a Senate seat here.
What you are all forgetting is that since JFK, no Senator has been elected president. There were only a few before then. If Hillary leaves the Senate in 2006 she'll be able to hide her real views (ie her Senate votes) with so much moderate barf, and we all know the MSM will abet her in this.
I say, leave her in the Senate in 2006 to: 1) piss off the NYers for not finishing out her term and 2) show how liberal she really is.
She'll get the same criticisms as sKerry - not paying attention to NY business, absent from Senate votes while campaigning etc etc, plus when she does vote, we'll all see which way she leans (left or lefter), but certainly not moderate as she'd like the country to think.
And how many sitting vice presidents had been elected president before GHWB? And how many sons of presidents since Adams? And how many candidates who lost the NH primary won the presidency before Clinton?
There were only a few before then. If Hillary leaves the Senate in 2006 she'll be able to hide her real views (ie her Senate votes) with so much moderate barf, and we all know the MSM will abet her in this. I say, leave her in the Senate in 2006 to: 1) piss off the NYers for not finishing out her term and 2) show how liberal she really is.
And showing how liberal she really is will do what, exactly? And who will be revealing this--the MSM? You just said yourself the MSM abet her in hiding her views, so how is this going to happen? And why wouldn't these views be revealed in a national campaign, with a wider variety of press, as opposed to a fawning local press and the MSM?
She'll get the same criticisms as sKerry - not paying attention to NY business, absent from Senate votes while campaigning etc etc, plus when she does vote, we'll all see which way she leans (left or lefter), but certainly not moderate as she'd like the country to think.
Yeah, those charges really stuck to Kerry. (?)
Anyone who thinks Hillary will somehow be "revealed" if she stays in the senate hasn't been paying attention the last 4+ years.
What makes you think we'd get 50% from Pirro is the question, though? She's to the left of Lincoln Chafee. And some day she may end up in the position of Arlen Specter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.