"if the Republicans...put up someone who can't deflect her arguments on free trade, they'll be unpleasantly surprised in 2008"
I happen to think the Republicans can win with free trade--they've done it before--but they have to put up someone who can make a case for their position, instead of trying to dance around it like a Rat. Especially when they know it will be her issue as far as the 'idiots' are concerned. Some Republicans have demonstrated that they understand this and are quitting the free trade and open border ranks (Newt Gingrich, for example, is making noise on this). I don't LIKE these candidates, necessarily, but I do think they're being smart in trying to mute this issue.
In the meantime, I cordially invite you to rethink your comments. There are plenty more than 5 or 6 voters who will be motivated by a protectionist stand, especially one that deals with immigration at the same time. Our concern should be that they'll end up voting for a woman whose sole goal in extending protectionism and closing down immigration is to concentrate her power here.
So feel free to make another smartass comment about Lou Dobbs. But you'll be laughing out of the other side of your face if Hillary is elected because people like you nominate a Republican candidate who can't persuade the public regarding these issues, around which Hillary seems to planning her candidacy, and which the media will certainly highlight.
LOL! I nailed you down with that single bit of tripe that you posted.
As per usual, you libertines can't buy a clue as to what is important to the public.
As for trade, it does not even make the top ten. It will not be a issue in 08, and Hillary Clinton, Pat Buchanan, and yes, even Lou Dobbs are unelectable for POTUS.
The Rats intend to use some of these wedge issues to spit the party, but they won't be able to.
Ya see, even Lou Dobbs likely voted for Bush, and anyone with half a brain knows that Hillary is a flamin socialist. She uses everything she can to divide and conquer, just as her commie mentors taught her.
Funny thing about the new Commies, they are now calling themselves Progressives and have since embraced Capitalism as the missing link in their previous failures.
Soros and company will be backing the one they can win with however, and even Soros does not trust the Clintons. Even he, sees that Clintons are in it to feather their nest and for the power, the feeling of power.
BTW, Lou Dobbs has the red ass because his dreams, his pay, and his ex company did not rise with the tide of dot coms. He sees foreign competition, Indian techies and global trade as dangerous for little fiefdoms who want to get rich quick on stock options. Unfortunately for him, that little game did not pan out, and he blames globalization, Bush, and anybody that PO's him.
Pat Buchanan is much the same in some ways. But his politics are at least honest. He is just from a time and place that disappeared prior to WWII. He thinks we picked the wrong option from the two that were available after 9/11. He wanted to retreat and build the proverbial "wall" around America and let the fools kill each other across the oceans he still sees as offering protection.
If he had had his way, a large thermonuclear explosion would likely have occurred in one of our harbors, taking out a large city and devastating our economy.
Pat is dead wrong, but he comes to it with honesty. The rest are trying to get rid of some particular facet of life that they abhor for personal reasons.
Bush will defuse anything the Dems throw at the Republican party for the next four years, and we will field a good candidate. I just don't have a clue who it will be yet.
We will have so much on our plate, that Free Trade will be invisible on the list. We need vision, imagination and a president that is willing to use all we command. Not a woman with a Marxist ideology and a Lothario for a "first man". She will have little influence regarding what we do, or who we put up as a candidate.
We lead, we don't follow.