Posted on 12/09/2004 7:42:34 AM PST by crushelits
The folks who are hoping for a candidate to be elected that promises to work to outlaw abortion or overturn Roe v. Wade
are not realistic. Neither is likely to happen.
>>>>Even if you are a voter that pro-life issues are your number one concern, you have to agree that having a Republican president, regardless if he is pro-choice, will do more good for your cause than having a Democrat president.
I don't agree with that in any way. To be honest, if you take off the pro-life issues, many pro-lifers have more in common with moderate Democrats than they do with Guiliani. I won't vote for a pro-choicer from either party, period. I certainly won't campaign for the man.
patent
His name is all over FR but not in the general population. We have to get Mark Sanford better known because he has the potential to be the next Reagan IMHO.
On the brightside, Allen was a Governor for a period of time. Perhaps he still has more of that mentality than one of a Senator?
Allen could make it, I think. He's another good one.
Maybe you could list the outstanding voter attraction
any other potential candidate might have.
OK, how bout Laura Ingraham?
I'm not necessarily asking you to vote against Hillary. I'm just saying if she and Rudy are the two nominees, I'd like for you to go with the lesser of two evils. I have my suspicions that you agree with him on more issues than you do her. And, if you're stuck having a president that is not pro-life, wouldn't you at least like to have one that is conservative on SOME issues?
Ditto that!! Bob-The-Taxman-Taft would tax everything in sight!! Ken Blackwell is the man!
The south will still be solid red if Hillary is the Dem nominee.
So if the choice is between two pro-choice people, you wouldn't mind Hillary winning given all of her liberal views? Yes, I know Rudy is left of center on social issues, but he is not on fiscal and security issues.
I don't know, I just hope the GOP continues to ride the wave that we are now on.
As a side note, if the GOP doesn't get tough on illegal immigration and Hitlery or the dems talk tough on it, they will swing the votes their way.
We need to keep our southern-midwest-mountain state strategy intact. It has won us the last two elections. The 'Rats can read the electoral map as well as we can. They've learned (or should have) their lesson running failed liberals candidates from the Northeast. They won in '76, '92 and '96 with a southern 'Rat with experience as a Governor and who could put on the mask of "moderate" and push a snowjob on the electorate. I'd be surprised if they don't nominate a southerner in '08.
LOL that Edwards jumped ahead of Kerry on that list.
Simon from California is a pro-life Catholic with Santorum or Brownback as running mate.
You took the words right out of my mouth (or off my keyboard.) Hey, j_k_l, you need a barf alert to go with picture. That man makes my butt pucker.
Another reminder why I am not a Hewitt fan.
Once again, Hugh is fact-challenged.
Pat Robertson did not win Iowa in 1988. He was defeated soundly by Bob Dole.
His prognostications about the 2008 race are about as sound, IMO.
Oh, he is also wrong about Buchanan. Dole beat him too, in 92.
Hewitt needs to hire a fact checker.
So you .02 cents gets us Hillary as President. Everyone had better get their heads straight on this or we'll end up with a "Perot"-like situation again and Hillary. There is no "Rino" I can think of that would be worse than that. This candidate has to be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats -- or she'll win. 2008 is not going to be a year to be ideological it's a year to be practical (spoken by someone who really, really likes Tom Tancredo -- but the top of the ticket HAS to be someone everyone knows).
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.