The UNTHINKABLE -- "Chat session - with Jim Robinson (FR)" -- at Liberty Post?

LP | March 18th, 2004 | Jim Robinson

[lainie]

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-my–heart-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!

[Texasforever]

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.

[Syncro]

Well, this Thread should fix that...

[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.

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?

[Amelia]

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....

[Howlin]

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.

[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.

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.

[Howlin]

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.

[Howlin]

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?

[lainie]

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.

[Texasforever]

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?

[Frito Bandito]

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.

[lainie]

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.

[Texasforever]

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.

[Amelia]

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....

[lainie]

He was by far the better candidate.

[Texasforever]

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.

[lainie]

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

[Texasforever]

Night.

[Cheapskate]

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!"