Replies

Well, I do tend to agree with you on some issues. For one, I, too am sick of the spinelessness (is that a word?) of the Republicans but our rogues are far fewer and in most instances, not nearly as radical. I do disagree with President Bush for the same reasons you stated but mostly on immigration. (Grrrrr) It really angers me.

Look up spinelessness in the dictionary and you'll find a picture of an elephant and the GOP as the 1st definition. ;-)

Again about Bloomberg and Spector, they are liberals and I don't believe they would have gotten as far as to actually win a primary for President. You have to look where they are from.

And McCain and Guiliani are. . . ? Staunchly conservative? I don't think so.

We are discussing a hypothetical that has been presented here. I think that it is really a great question and a great time to think about 2008 and examine our rationale and work through any misperceptions about who the candidates are or should be. If we indicate a willingness to accept a McCain or a Rudy, do you really think that we'll get any better? If we commit our support too soon to any candidate, do we stand a chance of getting what we want?

I hate to be crude or suggestive, but look at it in these terms:

Does a girl get more respect from a suitor when she says 'yes' on the first or second date? Or does she get used for his purposes and shunted aside? Think of politics and male/female relations in the same terms and the analogy is fitting. The goal of both the politician and the suitor is the very much the same. A woman should not give in so easily to such requests and neither should we.

I still stick to my original position. I will revise my original statement. I will vote for a Republican unless the other party can provide me a good alternative like Zell Miller or John Brau. (Cant spell)

I've voted for my last Republican if this is the best that we can do. I won't vote for the Dem, but if we aren't more stingy with our votes, the GOP will continue to prop up and promote RINOs. They have to know that sometimes we will vote for NOTA. If winning and power is what is important to them (the party elite), they will have to acknowledge that principle is what is important to us, but first we have to make sure that they hear that message loud and clear.

I am definitely not a wimpy conservative. I am a Rush Limbaugh type conservative. A raging, get involved, hate liberalism type of conservative.

From some of your other posts, I didn't really think that you were and that's why I was surprised by your post on this thread and I couldn't walk by without questioning you.

I think I am probably one of a few people who actually sees the real danger of getting a liberal in power. Not in social issues or domestic issues but on terrorism. I really believe Rudy or even McCain would be better on terrorism than a liberal democrat.

Overseas, I don't think that you are wrong. And, without their hands tied, the military can do the job better than any other force in the world. Domestically, however, I don't want anyone who forgets that we are a free people and respects that freedom and guards it zealously.

We can take our stand but do it after our guy gets in office cause if a liberal democrat gets in, we won't have another chance."

Once in office, it's too late for us to make demands and have expectations. In the primary, we better all get behind a strong conservative. If we don't, penowa's prediction of a 3 way race and a Hillary victory will come true.

We have come too far to hand the next nomination to a RINO. If we talk of compromising our values and desires, now, here on FR -- a conservative site (and you know that this site is monitored) -- in order to win at any cost, we are conceding defeat to the RINOs before the race begins and the victory, if there is one over the Democrats will be Pyrrhic.

I understand what you are saying about people saying each election, this is the most important one but those were before 9/11. This time and in the future, it is for real.

I think that penowa said that, but I do agree with him. Politicians always like to scare you into voting for them. If they lose, it's the end of the world. Nonsense. We survived the first clinton because we properly regarded him as an enemy of liberty. Many here believe that Bush can do no wrong. That's more nonsense.

This election is important, but not because of the war on terrorism, but because of the ongoing war on our liberties. If we choose security over liberty, then, as Franklin said, we are worthy of neither.