Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives for Hillary?
Real Clear Politics ^ | 05/01/07 | Bruce Bartlett

Posted on 05/01/2007 5:18:55 AM PDT by peyton randolph

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: peyton randolph

I believe she is, indeed, the most conservative Democrat candidate running. She is also the most gangsterish. Her previous co-administration featured methods more familiar to the likes of the Longs of Louisiana and Mississippi and certain famous Italian-Americans of the Northeast. That said, I believe that she would have a more concrete conservative effect. She will provoke a conservative Republican Congress after November ‘10. Edwards will be Camelot redux, the prince who can do no wrong. Obama- the great void who probably won’t do anything particularly damaging to himself. Both will retain and strengthen their left-lib Congresses. No candidate now running will successfully change the march to defeat in the Iraqi and Afghan Campaigns. The Democrats desire that defeat and the Republican will not have a military after 08 with which to engage the enemy.


61 posted on 05/01/2007 7:54:32 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeystoy
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.

That paragraph is exactly right. But it conflicts with your "ideologically pure" statement. There is a hell of a lot of room between "ideologically pure" and Ralph. How about "50% ideologically pure", which would cause a half-way sentient being to vote libertarian or stay home? No one is asking for "pure." We are asking--especially after the last 6 years--for a conservative, not a faux conservative.

62 posted on 05/01/2007 7:58:03 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

63 posted on 05/01/2007 8:23:04 AM PDT by bedolido (I can forgive you for killing my sons, but I cannot forgive you for forcing me to kill your sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gate2wire
In '92 did you have the opinion that a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton? I did. I know a lot of freepers will argue until they're blue in the face that a vote for Howard Phillips, Buchanan, Harry Brown, etc. is not a wasted vote. Okay, it wasn't wasted. And then we endure another Dem in the WH.

Just don't get caught up in the "Bruce Bartlett is a [fill-in-the-blank expletive]". He's always been a staunch conservative, a very smart economist. In this article I don't think he's so much promoting an idea as much as he's reading the writing on the wall and trying to come up with a strategy in response to what he sees is inevitable.

I don't fault him for that. I hope he's wrong.

P.S. Most every decent conservative pundit who has ever expressed an opinion that did not comport with the establishment view have been accused of being unhinged, insane, stupid, and causing trouble RIGHT HERE IN RIVER CITY.

64 posted on 05/01/2007 8:32:41 AM PDT by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
Another Rooty shill trying to get conservatives to crossover in the primaries so Rooty and his band of merry idiots can sneak by and make it a race of the choice between two liberal pukes.

No wonder that he wanted those with a functional brain to stop reading before he pitched his moronic plan.

65 posted on 05/01/2007 8:40:32 AM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super Walmart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

“In ‘92 did you have the opinion that a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton?”

Oh yeah, no question. Still makes me sick.
I can see us going down this same path, obviously. I have stayed out of the debate so far because it’s so early in the process. Don’t think Guiliani/clinton is a foregone conclusion. Looking back, remember how long it took for bill clinton to show strength in the dem. primaries.
Gives me hope that a Conservative will step up.


66 posted on 05/01/2007 8:48:29 AM PDT by gate2wire (Street Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
The Dem to support is Mike Gravel if there is one. He shares their views on surrender and health care, but is for a flat tax.

Not only that, he SPEAKS what the other Dems only think.

67 posted on 05/01/2007 8:49:38 AM PDT by HarmlessLovableFuzzball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ncjetsfan
Bruce, what, by chance, is a “politically sophisticated conservative”?

With a name like "Bruce" I think I would equate a "politically sophisticated conservative" with a "Log Cabin Republican"

68 posted on 05/01/2007 8:55:24 AM PDT by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
there is little if any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates -- even among Republicans

Well, if the Republican Party would stop fielding Democrats as candidates, some enthusiasm might appear.

69 posted on 05/01/2007 9:01:13 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired COB
“With a name like “Bruce” I think I would equate a “politically sophisticated conservative” with a “Log Cabin Republican”

The guy is a Libertarian and a Rooty shill that thinks the SoCons are destroying the party.

70 posted on 05/01/2007 9:11:34 AM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super Walmart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: gate2wire

I agree with everything you said.


71 posted on 05/01/2007 9:14:39 AM PDT by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

When Hillary is President, say hello to Supreme Court Justice Lani Guinere.

For all of Bill’s so-called “conservative” credentials, this is what lies below the surface.


72 posted on 05/01/2007 10:10:35 AM PDT by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Still Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
>>>As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year.

After reading this first sentence, you know to ignore the rest of the article, and in the future, it’s author and publication.

1. We are 16 months out from the GE. 85% of the voters could care less about the election at this point.

2. In the last 60 days alone, we have seen major shifts in the buzz about leading candidates, as well as fund raising trends.

3. This is all media hype to create a crisis to boost sagging ratings and circulation figures.

4. No one has any idea where we or the world will be in 60 days, let alone 16 months.

73 posted on 05/01/2007 10:14:59 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

yea......like “Christians for Satan”.


74 posted on 05/01/2007 10:28:06 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (I like Fred, but WILL be supporting the Republican nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Bump for later...


75 posted on 05/01/2007 10:29:12 AM PDT by babygene (Never look into the laser with your last good eye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
[.. Hillary must have his FBI file...or he has a crack pipe habit. ]

He of course is correct and you are in denial..
No conservative can win in 2008.. even Newt or Fred..

It will take Hitlery destroying the economy for a win in 2012...
More taxes and Universal Health Care.. quite simple really..

76 posted on 05/01/2007 10:36:31 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

In 1983 Reagan was getting crused by John Glenn.
Heck in mid 1988 GHW Bush was losing to Dukakis.
In 1999 GW Bush was beating Gore by 15 points.

Polls are valuable, but not this far out.


77 posted on 05/01/2007 10:36:57 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (A proud member of the Frederalist society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

That article is one to make me lose my lunch...blecccch.....


78 posted on 05/01/2007 10:38:50 AM PDT by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

This is perhaps THE most pathetic article I’ve read in many years.


79 posted on 05/01/2007 10:39:28 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RacerF150

Chickens for Colonel Sanders! per..aaaaack!


80 posted on 05/01/2007 10:39:55 AM PDT by Rodm (Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson