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
It's Sunday...
Group Hug!
It depends on how you define 'conservative'.
I consider the core of conservatism at the national level to be:
1. Strong national defense
2. Low taxes
3. Strict constructionist judges with regard to rights reserved for the states.
The Constitution was designed not to give the Federal government any say over social issues.
Are both candidates conservatives or is one a partial conservative? If there is such a thing.
Conservatives usually vote GOP by default. BUT, right now de fault lies with the GOP.
Nice post. At this point, I think the only GOP candidate I couldn't support in the General Election would be McCain. As an Arizonan I have learned not to trust him since his opinions swing so wildly without any ideological or logical compass. I could see him nuking Iran one week and surrendering to N. Korea the next. He's just loco, irrational and doesn't know what he's doing.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
a good number of them will.
but look at it this way - we may not be able to win the presidency without them, but we surely cannot win the presidency with ONLY them.
so what path do you want to choose? a sure loss, or a possible win.
Well said! Last I knew, conservatives wanted government out of our lives and out of our bedrooms.
Liberal Republicans like Guiliani are more dangerous than liberal democrats,
because liberal Republicans BLUR THE DISTINCTION between liberalism and conservatism,
making LIBERALISM MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE.
The choice is so clear that it blinds. Anyone who withholds support from the party's nominee who is not a Democrat, is paying for 8 cylinders and running on 6.
Too late.
Surely you're not suggesting that we abandon the social issue law and regulations to the Leftists on principal?
The GOP is not going to fix itself. That said, I don't have much hope for conservatives doing what they should have done after Ronaldus Maximus left office; set up their own political party and told the GOP to take a long hike off a short pier.
Unfortunately, conservatives are the battered spouses of American politics. They are routinely abused by the GOP and have been for decades. But they'll never take the initiative to simply walk out the door.
We tend to forget that a political party is a tool for getting members of that party elected to office. Hard stop. It is not an ideological construct.
I'm happy the Constitution prevents President Bush from running for a third term. He has greatly disappointed me with his obsessive push for open borders and amnesty for illegals.
Maybe we'll get a conservative candidate this time who gives a hoot about national sovereignty and the economic interests of American CITIZENS and TAXPAYERS.
What does that mean?
There are several elements that comprise that lofty objective. Many of those elements are not supported by many legislators... democrats and republicans.
I would tend to support Romney, then consider Rudy BECAUSE executive experience is important and a governor (hopefully a mayor) beats a Senator.
An issue no one mentions is VERY important - fighting corruption. The GOP is sooo stupid to be tagged as corrupt, when in many states the republican US Attorney is the ONLY check on democrat corruption. New Jersey - need I say more?
I agree. If I had to "choose" McCain, I'd go back to drinking.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
You know, they used to be called "Yellow Dog Democrats", but I guess the Pubbies have gotten that stupid as well. Glad I'm a registered Independant.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
There is no way I will vote for Rudy McRomney, if it is a split so be it.
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.