Rudy is pro abortion; and signed up for all of the internationalist agenda that refuses to police the US borders and wants to defend the Mohammadan aggression by curtailing the Constitutional rights and privileges of American citizens. No sign that he would do anything about the budget and spending policies or the shrinking dollar. No sign that he would reduce those of our overseas commitments which are not in our national interest.
And if you, or Rudy, think he has the horsepower to stop Mrs. Clinton, the time and place for him to do so is in 2006 in New York where he has wimped out with good reason.
Many here favor Ms. Rice--I don't. My primary objection is that she is not a strong leadership personality. Her convictions are general policy views that go along with the current direction of government. What we need is a candidate with a firm conviction that many of our public policy directions are wrong and must be corrected--with the courage to say so and do something about it when elected.
Frist is another unqualified leader pro Abortion politician who is indistinguishable on policy from the others.
The current fiasco over the judges is a good example. The only--sole--reason I voted for Bush was judicial appointments. I don't know of any other respect in which I think Kerry's Administration would have been any different than the Bush Administration. Kerry would have been a little weaker and probably less effective but a less effective internationalist is positive.
Bush will appoint a successor to Rheinquist; probably O'Conner; probably Ginsburg; maybe Stevens. The goal is to come away from that process with a 5 or 6 vote conservative majority, shifting O'Conner's seat from swing to solid and shifting at least one of the liberals to conservative, two if Bush gets a fourth appointment.
I don't see any sign that Bush has the leadership force at this point to accomplish that objective.
The problem is not just "RINO"s. With a couple of exceptions (Chaffee; and the ladies from Maine and maybe one or two others), most of these people in fact have personal conservative convictions. Bob Dole; Lindsey Graham; for example are conservatives. But they are weak personalities with limited leadership capability--instead of seeking results, they sought compromise. That is the state of Republican leadership--again with some exceptions.
So when you add all this up, unless Republicans can very shortly come up with a common consensus on some present outsider who has real leadership talent and strong views, you better get used to saying President Clinton again.
I might add one longshot to stop her--a Constitutional amendment to permit former two time Presidents who have been out for at least one term to run and be elected again in exchange for twenty year immigrants who were not born in the US. A chance for the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot. Because a contest between Mrs. Clinton and Mr Clinton for the Dem nomination is one way I can think of that both might lose.
What about Tancredo? I've read some good things about him here.
I happen to agree with you. There is no Republican of import with name recognition. All the ones mentioned in the MSM are weak.
I have on my desk 2 questionaires from the Repubs asking my opinion on a varitey of subjects.
I'm trying to cool off enough to tell them what I think of their 'leadership' and keep it civil.