If I wanted a Pro-Arabist puppet of Baker and Scowcroft, I'd have voted for Buchanan!
Or maybe it's achoice between Pro-Arabists in Rice and Hillary...no real choice there but to write in Tom Tancredo.
Posted on 11/25/2005 3:36:42 PM PST by oldsalt
Did I hear correctly during the Fox news interview with Condi Rice by Jim Angle?
When he ended the interview I could swear he called her Madame President instead of Madame Secretary.
If not maybe it was wishful thinking on my part.
English as our national language
closed and secure borders
government out of the health care business
no quotas
no reverse discrimination
ending spousal rights for gay couples
ending teaching of any classes in any language other than English
dropping Western Civ and Eastern Civ from school curiculums and adding more American History
etc.
My idea of "social moderate/liberal" is probably a lot different than yours and most others'.
He is probably more right for most Republicans than most of the other names thrown out there, but I still fear any politician.
I want some good-looking, charismatic, young corporate guru to leap to the front of the pack. I do not trust ANY politician--they never want to lead and make tough decisions like a CEO has to do all the time.
Unless there is a complete commitment to the life issue, Sec. Rice will never get through the primaries.
To some extent I agree with you. On the other hand, do not rule out Condi. On foreign policy, she has always been on the right side. I have no idea how she stands on key domestic issues, except for the second amendment, but she would always be preferable to any democrat......
This thanksgiving I had an interesting conversation with one of my sister-in-laws, who, at every family gathering, I always get into huge arguements with, her being a card-carrying member of the hard-left/DU crowd. She told me yesterday, b4 any debate, that if Condi ran, she would vote for her (unless HRC ran).
She said gender trumped party. I believe many idiots follow this creed and would do the same.....except with Condi, she would ALSO get a H U G E percentage of the black vote, because for too many in the black community, race trumps party in a presidential election.
If Condi wins the Republican primary, Condi will be the next president.
Hugh Hewitt's site is running a poll:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
Results show Giuliani ahead of the offered selection but Condi way out in front as "dream" candidate.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/november05results.php
Only 11000 votes so far, everyone go vote !
[...My idea of "social moderate/liberal" is probably a lot different than yours and most others'...]
Try me. I don't care about social liberalism if they keep it to themselves. What I object to is social activism.
Stop legislating morality (abortion, same sex marriage, Euthenasia)
Run the government like a company... that is for profit.
Stop legislating Charity. (welfare)
The Republicans have trashed their name with all their liberalism. The Libertarians have some kooky ideas, like legalizing drugs, etc. What we need is a new party that never allows RINO types--they boot them out when they go to the dark side.
The America First Party.
The Freedom Party.
The Nationalist Party (I like that one).
"Hitlery Clinton or Dr. Condeleeza Rice? No Question there"
It would put a third party canidate in a good position...
You are correct. We are on the same wavelength. I get real tired of all the abortion, religion and all that jazz comimng out of many Republicans.
I guess that makes me a "social liberal" in their eyes, but when it comes to FISCAl conservatism, national security and national sovereignty, I am so far right that the right does a doubletake and starts believing that maybe they are closet leftists!
:)
I would prefer not having the Female version of Colin Powell in the White House.
" On foreign policy, she has always been on the right side."
She has been on Bush's side. She works for him, she has to be... that says nothing about her,
If I wanted a Pro-Arabist puppet of Baker and Scowcroft, I'd have voted for Buchanan!
Or maybe it's achoice between Pro-Arabists in Rice and Hillary...no real choice there but to write in Tom Tancredo.
This suggestion sure has created a lot of postings. I especially liked "Hitlery." There should be more of that kind of recognition of the danger she poses. And don't forget her gestapo, who keep authors they don't like off tv, even Fox (those cowards). I'd vote for Condi even though she's anti-life and I'm pro-life. She's better than Rudy and certainly better than pink John, the MSM's darling. (Ever consider how they'd treat him if he were running against Hitlery? Hah!)
AND WHAT IS WRONG WITH RICE'S POSITION ON ABORTION?
Miss Rice said abortion should be "as rare a circumstance as possible," although without excessive government intervention. "We should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other.
"So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it."
Describing pro-lifers as "the other side" is one of the ways Miss Rice articulates her position as a "mildly pro-choice" Republican. She explained that she is "in effect kind of libertarian on this issue," adding: "I have been concerned about a government role.
"I am a strong proponent of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be.
"We ought to have a culture that says, 'Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or a sibling go through something like that?' "
Miss Rice described abortion as an "extremely difficult moral issue" which she approaches as "a deeply religious person."
"My faith is a part of everything that I do," she said. "It's not something that I can set outside of anything that I do, because it's so integral to who I am.
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 12, 2005
We cannot divide. Not yet. We need to stick together and wait for a generation of Iraqi's that do not remember Hussein or the war. This generation will grow up knowing American's as the generous, selfless protectors that we are. Then we will have true allies.
I see it a bit differently.
I see the 50% or so of eligible voters who do not vote. Since the RATs seem to scrape people off the streets, offer pot, booze and whores or whatever to get them to vote RAT, I believe it is the Republicans who have the most to gain to get these nonvoters. These nonvoters are pro-America, self-sufficient, often well-to-do, USA first, pro-isolationist, limited government cynical eligibles who have been turned off by both parties they see as one and the same. They hate the globalism, welfare, wealth transfer agendas of both parties.
That is why I see a new party as the only way to save this nation. We need the "Nationalist Party" with a platform to regain our national sovereignty, become more isolationist, become USA first in our dealings, terminate the UN, end global welfare, make national security a true #1 goal and not lip service, make opportunity for all through education (not handouts), totally change the curriculum in our public schools with massive teachings of American History and Military History, Science and Math and IT and end all the other BS taught in schools, and other common sense pillars.
With this new party and platform (expanded , of course, but always America First in nature), you would get 90% of current Republican voters and 25% of the chronic nonvoters and SWAMP the RATs/Marxists on election day with 65% plus of votes.
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.