I don't buy the argument that some Freepers seem to make, that 'being a true conservative' qualifies a candidate to be president.
Of course it's a crucial prerequisite, but there are millions of people that have the same beliefs, values and ideas... and 99.8% of them don't have the other qualifications to become elected or perform as POTUS.
With the dearth of strong conservative candidates I can understand the focus, but I'd like to hear more balance in the FR discussion.
Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.
We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations.
We will not survive another clinton.
(We may yet not survive the first one.)
You can't be referring to me, because I said Fred's conservatism was his top qualification, not his only qualification.
I don’t trust RINO Rudy and will never vote for him due to his liberal record. I doubt McVain or Romney have a chance to win, but if nominated I would vote for them, same for Hunter, T. Thompson, Tancredo, Gingrich and other conservatives that are trying to gain the nomination.
My personal preference is to see Fred Thompson enter the race for I believe he is the most conservative choice we have who actually has a solid chance to win the election.
Voting for RINO Rudy is selling out your principles just to say that there is a ‘Republican’ POTUS, when in reality all you’ve done is put a liberal in the White House who will be every bit a disaster as HRC over the long run, IMO.
The inverse, however, is true. Rudy's liberalims disqualifies him from being a viable GOP nominee.