Posted on 05/01/2007 5:18:55 AM PDT by peyton randolph
Republicans are choosing to batter there best candidate.
Ok Bruce, you’re crazy.
Oops!
“Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.”
OK, you’re insane. How’s that, Bruce?
i’m registering dem this year so i can vote for obama in the primary
You said it Bruce: “Call me crazy.”
Ok Bruce, you’re crazy.And Clintoon winning the Presidency, being re-elected, and averting conviction was just our imagination. The Dems taking over the House and Senate - never happened.
Face it, most of the electorate are ignorant and they'll remain so right up to the election.
You might not like hearing this but, Bruce Bartlett ain't no fool. He could have easily based his prognosticastions just on wait goes on here at FR.
LOL!! I live in the Gay city, Seattle.
Oh, I have no doubt that the American people can be foolish enough to elect her.
But, being the choice for conservatives, I don’t buy it.
You left one out, Bruce - the Democratic Party is the party of murder, treason and socialism. I refuse to be ruled by the likes of them. They are America's domestic enemies.
If The Witch steals the election, the Constitution is dead, anyhow, so why not feed the roots of the Tree of Liberty?
Of course not. But enough conservatives stayed home Nov 2006 for obvious reasons. And what did we get?
I'll vote my conscience in the primary. But if Guiliani (or other unacceptable RINO du jour) wins the day, prepare yourself. A lot of Freepers have already expressed their willingness to abort.
Sidebar Poll: If the general election were held today....
Unfortunately that is far too true. We have the socialist party and the slightly less socialist party.
That is why the easy thing for Sen. Clinton to do would be to just thrown in the towel, admit her vote was wrong, and move on. And that’s why it is an act of courage for her to refuse to do so. If conservatives weren’t so blinded by their hatred for her, this would be obvious.
No, it was an act of political calculation for her. She expected to walk into the nomination of a path of rose petals so she needed a "moderate" general election stand. Now that she is in a real fight, any change would probably hurt her more than help her because she would be exposed as a first degree panderer.
Its [XXX-42's economic policy's] essential elements are a commitment to deficit reduction and globalization
The author has no memory of the 1990s. The reason why deficits went down was because XXX-42 had a very difficult time getting any major spending programs through the Republican Congress after the 1994 election. Clinton's policies didn't lead to the boom of the 1990s. Instead it was Washington inaction let the economy grow at its natural pace. I don't see a Democratic Congress reining in Mrs. Bill Clinton's rampant statism.
No, I will not be voting for Hillary in the general election in 2008. I am even considering registering as a Democrat for the primary next year just so I can vote against here in that election too.
Bartlett’s argument is very flawed for several reasons. First, by his logic, conservatives should never have supported Barry Goldwater in 1964 because he had no chance of winning. They should have lined up behind liberal Democrat LBJ because of LBJ’s “centrist” approach to foreign policy. But that would have been total surrender to the liberal order. By supporting Goldwater despite his loss, conservatives successfully motivated their movement to produce major victories in the future.
Second, Bartlett seems to forget that a Hillary presidency will bring many activist left-wing judges to the courts who will hurt the country for years into the future.
Finally, let’s assume just for the sake of argument that Bartlett is right that Hillary is the most “centrist” Democrat in the running. What he forgets is another crucial factor: Hillary has a very bad temperament for the presidency. She is a persistently pandering, intensely calculating, and notoriously vengeful personality. These are clear reasons to keep her out of the Oval Office.
Bartlett’s argument is very flawed for several reasons. First, by his logic, conservatives should never have supported Barry Goldwater in 1964 because he had no chance of winning. They should have lined up behind liberal Democrat LBJ because of LBJ’s “centrist” approach to foreign policy. But that would have been total surrender to the liberal order. By supporting Goldwater despite his loss, conservatives successfully motivated their movement to produce major victories in the future.
Second, Bartlett seems to forget that a Hillary presidency will bring many activist left-wing judges to the courts who will hurt the country for years into the future.
Finally, let’s assume just for the sake of argument that Bartlett is right that Hillary is the most “centrist” Democrat in the running. What he forgets is another crucial factor: Hillary has a very bad temperament for the presidency. She is a persistently pandering, intensely calculating, and notoriously vengeful personality. These are clear reasons to keep her out of the Oval Office.
He wasn't writing about "Republicans". He was writing about "conservatives." As we've seen, especially from the "best candidate," there is a sometimes a huge difference.
“Of course not.”
I’m just commenting on Barlett’s comment, not that conservatives might actually vote for her.
Amen.
Her Heinous’ negatives are at 52%. The only way she can be elected is if the Clintonistas get Ross Perot out of mothballs for one last gasp or the ideologically pure throw a hissy fit and stay home.
Either way, America descends into the socialist dark ages until our great grandchildren are old enough to right the ship—if they haven’t all left the country looking for better opportunity.
Any one of the Republicans is miles ahead of any of the Defeatocrats.
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.