Posted on 02/25/2007 3:24:10 PM PST by Rudder
My Dear Feepers,
It’s not just on Free Republic alone, the rift within the GOP perhaps more properly described as the rift between the GOP and one its constituents---Conservatives---has caught the attention of virtually all the major political prognosticators.
It’s a painful thing to endure, and likely it will not enhance our effectiveness as a party, as a political movement or in winning elections. And, at it’s current rate of development and the sometime nastiness of the invective on FR, I think it’s going to get worse long before it’s going to get better.
Think about this as a possible solution, one which allow all of us to still retain our own brand of conservatism and still push for a big win in 2008.
Consider the latest FR poll: 62% Hunter--27% Giuliani.
If the question could have been asked (perhaps it will in the future):
“Hunter is 15 points ahead of McCain and the rest of the pack fall further behind.
Giuliani shows ratings between 1 and 2% at this time, but with hard work and a creative campaign strategy, he just might pull it off in the next 22 months.
For whom would Freepers vote? My guess those going for Hunter would 99% of Freepers.
Can we do both? Support Hunter and yet, despite our best effort and he loses the primary, vote for a win in 2008 no matter who (except McCain) is our candidate?
I suspect the great majority of us could.
I propose this as one who wholeheartedly supports both candidates. Right now, Rudy looks like a winner and a guy who can best handle the job as CIC. Should it be Duncan, I would feel secure knowing that he represents my conservative philosophy and would govern as such.
I see two advantages obtained by this approach: 1. It may well reduce what could become damaging rifts within our community of Freepers. 2. If it works, it could spread and give conservatives in general (not just Freepers) unity---and a louder, focused voice (Re: Meiers?) that would influence the platform and the candidate.
I eagerly anticipate your comments and the flames.
R
Many otherwise very capable men have given up political life, and command, after that surgery.
...vote for a win in 2008 no matter who (except Rudy) is our candidate?
I don't get it. Please list Rudy's qualifications that make him the guy who "can best handle the job as CIC." If I recall correctly, Rudy has no military training or experience whatsoever. Even dropped out of ROTC and got a deferment from serving in Vietnam because he was a much needed law clerk. Clinton did the same thing and we all called him a "draft dodger" not the man best suited to lead as CIC.
He was only a serious candidate to those who bought into the media nonsense involving his annointment as a "moderate" in Washington, D.C.
I'm just tired of the "If you don't support Rudy, you'll get Hillary" argument.
IMHO, it's an argument worthy of the drive by media, not Freepers.
Are moderate Republicans asking Conservatives to turn their backs on their principals and beliefs and vote against something they strongly believe in? Where is the compromise on their part. Seems very one sided to me. Sad.
I refuse to vote for any potential gun grabber...period!
LOL! He probably is too!
All I know is that November 7th hurt conservatives more than it did RINO's... whether we will be a factor or not in 2008, remains to be seen.
Amen.
Well put.
Exactly.
Murder is not a social issue. The DoI observes a right to life.
Congress shall not infringe ownership & possession of weapons.
"Gay marriage" isn't marriage, however you cut it. Two guys can't make a baby, impossible, no hope, period, full stop.
Congress may promote the general welfare, but not by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Ordering Peter to pay Paul is also not tolerable.
I can arrange my own retirement plan, thank you very much.
Preventing the federal gov't from meddling in these social issues is also the core of conservatism; anyone (Rudy) who does meddle contrary to the above points rapidly loses his "conservative" mantle.
And actively ensuring the gov't does not meddle in social issues must not be confused with meddling in social issues.
McCain would box your ears in for saying that...that's the problem.
That's low.
You won't hear a 'squeak' from the Rudy-apologists on that one--likely the same ones who slammed Slick over his draft-dodger status.
In addition to that, Rudy's 'train wreck' of a personal life--makes him the only candidate in either party running for President,,,,to make Clinton look like a "GOOD HUSBAND AND FAMILY MAN"!!
You won't hear the Rudy-apologists say much about that one either (other than the pathetic, time-honored, ad nauseum, cop-out, of saying, "Rudy isn't perfect".) I will agree with them on that one, though,,,Rudy most certainly IS more imperfect than any of the other candidates!
I remember, to my eternal shame and self-disgust falling for the Perot scam and electing CLINTON.
Never, never, never again. Not ever, Damnittohell.
If Satan, or even worse, !Hilary! ran as a Republican I would have to vote for them!
(Neither would of course, so I am safe. To begin with, if Satan ran, she'd have him killed.)
Even to the extent of watching Hillary take office.
Not sorry, but that's the way it is.
If a pro-abortionist is elected so be it, but it will be without my help.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Any party which runs a Democrat as its candidate runs a Democrat as its candidate, even if a "Republican" label is affixed.
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.