[FairOpinion]

Sure, let's nominate an ultra conservative, so Hillary can beat him by 60/30 margin. Brilliant idea. (/sarcasm)

[EagleUSA]

Sure, let's nominate an ultra conservative, so Hillary can beat him by 60/30 margin. Brilliant idea. (/sarcasm)
------
Newt can beat her because he is not afraid of the MSM or exposing that evil Marxist witch. And Newt is a conservative. A patriot. And a fighter. And pro-Constitution. Got a better candidate with those credentials? I will vote for him.

[CWW]

So you want to nominate one of the most LIBERAL GOP elected officials who currently opposes almost 2/3rds of the PArty's platform?

Say smart guy -- how did Reagan win two terms?

Go ahead and nominate Rudy. It should be interesting to see the entire South go demoncratic again.

[Smokin' Joe]

Wouldn't you vote for an ultra-conservative over Hillary?

What makes you think a majority would not do so?

[Fierce Allegiance]

If you are so willing to compromise conservative principles, why don't you just vote democrat to be a winner.

No way to Rudy, Mitt or McCain!

[johnpannell]

Sure, let's nominate an ultra conservative, so Hillary can beat him by 60/30 margin. Brilliant idea. (/sarcasm)

So, instead we'll nominate two liberals. That way voters will get a choice: Hillary or the other liberal.

If the Republicans can't nominate someone who's even *close* to being a conservative, they deserve the drubbing they'll get.

[HitmanLV]

Sure, let's nominate an ultra conservative, so Hillary can beat him by 60/30 margin. Brilliant idea

The recently unemployed Rick Santorum and Katherine Harris say "hi!"