You would vote for the Hildabeast???
Posted on 06/19/2005 6:13:28 PM PDT by Tall_Texan
You would vote for the Hildabeast???
Not being from TX, Hutchison has the image of a wishy washy person who stands for nothing but going along with other people's agendas. She does not project being a "leader".
Historically, governors, not senators, have been the best candidates. What GOP governor is going to emerge with a reputation, a following, an issue, an agenda? with something that will attract supporters and media?
Don't know but there has only been 1 senator elected directly from the senate in about 100 years.
Voters want someone with executive experience.
All the "comity" and I say that with as much derision as possible is the exact opposite of what you want as POTUS.
*Intercom from 30 miles away* Troll, may you please stand right there please, yes right by that big round thing, perfect.
ZOT!!!
Look at his posting history - quite a lot of praise for Hillary and Bill Clinton alike.
I have never seen it happen but its possible, reminds me of Jim Jeffords.
Ah, a Hillary lover, eh?
I understand that most of you are offended by the idea that a cold rational choice for the long term best interest of constitutionally limited central government and the free enterprise economic system would have you voting for a ticket headed by Mrs. Clinton, but you need to get control of your emotions.
However bad she may be, the Clintons were not successful in pursuing a liberal agenda. Their principal legislative success was the 1993 Tax Bill--the Clinton administration was a period of growth and consolidation of conservative political power and a second Clinton administration would be the same. However bad a choice as Supreme Court justice Mr. Bryer has been, he is probably better than David Souter. And Ms. Ginsburg's health makes her an opportunity for the current administration rather than a succesful appointment.
As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the George II administration only because there is still time to turn failure into success. Although I reject the criticism of the invasion of Iraq, the aftermath has been terrible. Poorly thought out with no coherent policy to address the current status.
George II ought to be judged, at least in part, on his success in appointing a strong conservative majority on the United States Supreme Court. There is real doubt that he has the leadership skills and force to get his nominees approved by the Senate. Worse, on the first appointment, Rehnquist, where he has some chance to get a pass, he is waffling on Gonzales who will turn out to be another David Souter rather than forcing a strong nominee.
There is obvious support here for the Secretary of State. Ms. Rice is another weak opportunist; Pro-Abortion, anti-Bible, moderate with no obvious commitment to limited Constitutional government. What is she going to do that is better for the cause of freedom and the Republic than Mrs. Clinton will be able to do against a Republican Congressional majority?
This fuzz that some how you can defeat Mrs. Clinton with a weak candidate because the weak candidate is a woman, or a popular figure, is just wishful thinking. If Rudy really has what it takes to stop Mrs. Clinton, he ought to do it today in New York where his liberalism is an asset. We need to do a lot better.
You obviously have taken a sharp left turn since joining in 1997. Looking at your posting history, it's obvious you are a Hillary Clinton fan. You might want to check out DU sometime. There are a lot of like-minded people there you could converse with.
No. My political philosophy has not moved left in any way that I can think of.
Obviously, you are obviously welcome to think what you like--insulting your enemies is usually not a very effective form of argument.
I am not a fan of Mrs. Clinton's; but I am not a fan of George or his father either--both are lousy leaders. I don't like the liberal Republican fuzzys any better than I like liberal Dem fuzzys. And I guess I think in the next political exercise, trying to control our emotions and use our intellectual factilities to seek out the best way to persue our objectives is probably going to get us better results.
The best way to pursue our opportunities is to think through our objectives and devise stratigies to achieve them. Good Luck.
I'm not going to condemn your viewpoint, in fact there is some twisted logic to it - not in the "America will learn it's lesson and run back to the GOP" reason either. It is that if a Democrat is in office, Republicans can return to being Republicans again - small government, moral values Republicans again instead of the wishy washy sponges they are now. There would be enough of them to stop the worst of a Democrat's excesses and might even force something good like they did with Welfare Reform in Bubba's presidency.
But there is one major problem. The Clintons backdoored the congress with recess appointments and executive orders to get "their people" and their policies into place no matter how extreme and the MSM obviously kept mum about it. They seized large plots of land for governmental and environmental narcissism, they sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese, they sold off pieces of American soil - all without the consent of Congress.
If faced with something like McCain vs Hillary, I would prefer to leave than vote for either. Maybe I would choose third party. They would just do too much damage to the country to want to stay. But I think if it came down to McCain vs Hillary, at least Hillary would cause the Republicans to grow a backbone again instead of being simpering wimps.
What are your objectives?
Coldoleeza Rice is pro-gun. That is more than enough for me to vote for her.
Up to now, I have not really had to make a difficult Presidental vote decision. I live in two places: One, the classic ultimate blue state where no Republican is ever going to win any statewide election for anything; if the Dems don't have the votes they steal them; and the other, the ultimate red state where every single county went for George. I could probably vote either place but my vote is not going to count for anything.
However the message for the R's is this: My mother in law is 86 years old and has never voted for a Dem for president--and she swears that in 2008 she is going to vote for Mrs. Clinton. No Dem has ever carried this county for president--but I don't talk to a single person who would vote for George today. Unless the R's produce a strong effective leader as a 2008 candidate; or unless there is an effective third party candidacy; any Dem will win. And at the moment, Mrs. Clinton is the any Dem.
In a three way race between Mrs. Clinton, a Liberal Republican; and a conservative on the third line, the conservative has a good chance to win if organized and capitalized to run an effective campaign.
She'll compromise on single shot.
and hitlery is a plain gun grabber.
Perfect! Great 'Toon!
The Biased Liberal media is EAGER to report that Hitlery is
"Moving to the center."Ha! Yeah, right. When pigs fly.
Check out her "Move to the center" here, per the ACU. She
went from "10" in 2003 to a GOOSE EGG (0) in 2004, on a
scale of 100 = perfect conservative.Moving to the center? He**, she's farther left in 2004 than
EVER!
Click here or on the pic for the article.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D)
New York
Democrat, Years of Service: 4
ACU Ratings for Senator Clinton: Year 2004 0 Year 2003 10 Lifetime 9
As already mentioned, your love for Hillary would be more appreciated on the DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com
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.
