Skip to comments.
The UNTHINKABLE -- "Chat session - with Jim Robinson (FR)" -- at Liberty Post?
LP
| March 18th, 2004
| Jim Robinson
Posted on 03/18/2004 8:41:52 PM PST by Sabertooth
Title: Chat session - with Jim Robinson (FR)
Source: JimRobinson-FreeRepublic LIVE
URL Source: None
Published: Mar 18, 2004
Author: Jim Robinson
Post Date: 2004-03-18 19:37:34 by jimrobfr
Link
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-309 next last
To: Texasforever
Okay, yeah, yeah, we all know you meant that for me.
Yes, he ran as a not-so-conservative conservative, and I was cajoled into letting-not-myheart-be-troubled and holding my nose, because he was "better than Al Gore." Now, it seems, his main selling point is he's "better than John Kerry." When will it stop and a conservative candidate be catapulted? As Frito said earlier, we have no idea if one is electable, as one is never put up as the candidate!
281
posted on
03/20/2004 9:28:50 PM PST
by
lainie
To: lainie
As Frito said earlier, we have no idea if one is electable, as one is never put up as the candidate! Well we have primaries and Keyes was in the primary. We had Buchanan as a 3rd party. Now, if you can't win the primary how will you win the general election? In the case of Keyes, he was in 9 primary debates and still couldn't win a state.
282
posted on
03/20/2004 9:36:08 PM PST
by
Texasforever
(I am all flamed out.)
To: Amelia
Well, this
Thread should fix that...
283
posted on
03/20/2004 9:47:48 PM PST
by
Syncro
To: Texasforever
And when a golden opportunity for one presented itself, the CA republicans hoisted Ted Kennedy's nephew-in-law, and Free Republic chastised us for supporting McClintock.
We all know the system sucks, but my point is that conservatives have no support from republicans anyway. They're not the same thing anymore. I really think that's true. Are we all supposed to drift aimlessly into the morass of "moderate" hell or what?
284
posted on
03/20/2004 9:48:24 PM PST
by
lainie
To: Frito Bandito
For some conservatives, that eliminates George W. Bush from contention. Since currently the only 2 viable candidates are George W. Bush & John Kerry, saying that GWB isn't the candidate who "most closely reflects [y]our sensibilities" leaves a rather astonishing conclusion....
285
posted on
03/20/2004 9:49:40 PM PST
by
Amelia
To: Frito Bandito
Oh, Alan Keyes would have been a step in the right direction but the GOP didn't want to take that chance.Oh, that's right. He really could have gotten elected except for that nasty GOP.
It sure would help if you at least gave the appearance of dealing with reality.
286
posted on
03/20/2004 9:51:37 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: lainie
And when a golden opportunity for one presented itself, the CA republicans hoisted Ted Kennedy's nephew-in-law, and Free Republic chastised us for supporting McClintock. Simply not true. McClintock was on the ballot and had every chance to win the votes to his side. Regardless of what was said on FR McClintock had to convince Californians and it is obvious that he couldn't do that.
287
posted on
03/20/2004 9:53:27 PM PST
by
Texasforever
(I am all flamed out.)
To: lainie
Now, I believe, HE would have prosecuted one hell of a war on terror!Alan Keyes and I have two things in common;
We both could "talk" a hell of war on terrorism.
And neither one of us has a chance of ever doing it because we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.
288
posted on
03/20/2004 9:56:22 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: lainie
Are we all supposed to drift aimlessly into the morass of "moderate" hell or what?Why not find your own candidate and elect them then?
289
posted on
03/20/2004 9:58:29 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: Texasforever
You know exactly what I'm saying. Putting the movie star up brought the liberal vote. Yay. Now, it remains to be seen in the end, but so far Arnie isn't looking like the conservative to me. Just as I suspected -- just as was the case with Bush in 2000. So maybe I'm saying that I'm tired of the charade. None of these people represent what I think and feel, and I'm drowning in a sea of them with no land in sight.
290
posted on
03/20/2004 10:00:22 PM PST
by
lainie
To: lainie
You know exactly what I'm saying. Putting the movie star up brought the liberal vote. I really don't know what you are saying. You have to get the most votes to win don't you? Are you saying that McClintock could have won with just the conservative vote or would he have needed some of what you called the "liberal" vote?
291
posted on
03/20/2004 10:06:35 PM PST
by
Texasforever
(I am all flamed out.)
To: Amelia
Since currently the only 2 viable candidates are George W. Bush & John Kerry... Now we're back to "a vote for a minor candidate is a vote for Kerry."
Been down that road before, don't care to do it again.
To: Texasforever
We'll never know. The CA GOP refused to embrace and market him. Seems to me it could have worked?
I actually had one freeper tell me that a vote for McClintock was a vote for Bustamante, and I bet you secretly lust after Busty don't you; I bet you'd like him in office to deliver the Monica goods to him in Sacramento; sick stuff like that. What kind of conservative says that to another conservative, I don't know -- but being sold down the river there really gives me pause with whole Kerry/Bush argument.
293
posted on
03/20/2004 10:20:05 PM PST
by
lainie
To: lainie
We'll never know. The CA GOP refused to embrace and market him. Seems to me it could have worked? I don't know what it means to "embrace" him. He was well known in California GOP politics. He was in state government for I believe 20+ years. If his message was a winner and he was the right guy to carry the banner then why couldn't he get the embrace? As to your other comment about what freepers said to you I can't help you. I assume you didn't let it affect your vote and you voted for McClintock anyway assuming you live in CA.
294
posted on
03/20/2004 10:26:08 PM PST
by
Texasforever
(I am all flamed out.)
To: Frito Bandito
Now we're back to "a vote for a minor candidate is a vote for Kerry."Well, practically speaking that seems to be the case - notice in Florida they are still saying that if Nader hadn't syphoned votes away from Gore, Bush would not be president today.
Although since you're in California Kerry may take the state and its electoral votes in any case so it may not matter....
295
posted on
03/20/2004 10:27:22 PM PST
by
Amelia
To: Texasforever
He was by far the better candidate.
296
posted on
03/20/2004 10:28:44 PM PST
by
lainie
To: lainie
He was by far the better candidate. Well Laine he wasn't the better candidate. If he had been he would have won. Is he more conservative than AS...? No question about it but you have to win to govern.
297
posted on
03/20/2004 10:33:01 PM PST
by
Texasforever
(I am all flamed out.)
To: Texasforever
Eh. History's littered with lesser candidates who prevailed on election day. He
was the better candidate, he just wasn't the favored one. The question of why is what's before me.
Thanks, g'nite
298
posted on
03/20/2004 10:47:48 PM PST
by
lainie
To: lainie
Night.
299
posted on
03/20/2004 10:50:14 PM PST
by
Texasforever
(I am all flamed out.)
To: Frito Bandito
Thing's don't change one little bit.
It's still'Shut the H&ll up, get in line and check your opinions at the Door!"
300
posted on
03/20/2004 10:54:40 PM PST
by
Cheapskate
("Citizens are not sheep to be shorn, or fields of corn to be harvested"Gary Aldrich)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-309 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson