Replies

The discussion about Biden wanting Rumsfeld's job reminds me of why we have to be unified going into 2008.

I don't really have a favorite candidate right now, but I do know this: I am voting for whoever gets the nomination, even if it is McInsane or Huckabee or Frist.

The reason? NO DEMOCRAT SHOULD GET TO APPOINT CABINET MEMBERS AND CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY!!!

I implore those of you who carry grudges against one or more candidates, or who are single issue voters, PLEASE think about Biden in the Pentagon!!! No and no and no!! We have to stick together and keep this from happening!

285 posted on 03/12/2006 6:49:13 AM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's and Jemian's sons and keep them strong.)

Completely agree with you.

Plus, we will work for the election of our nominee and for the elections of our GOP candidates for US senate and house.

294 posted on 03/12/2006 6:51:28 AM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)

IF democrats win the HOUSE in '08, John Conyers, who keeps calling for Bush's impeachment, will become the chairman of the House Judicial Committee. Massive shudder and cringe.

301 posted on 03/12/2006 6:52:16 AM PST by Carolinamom (I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. ---Ronald Reagan)

.. implore those of you who carry grudges against one or more candidates, or who are single issue voters, PLEASE think about Biden in the Pentagon!!! No and no and no!! We have to stick together and keep this from happening!..

In a perfect world, I could consider 100% purity on the issues. However, this wonderful American republic comes with plenty of warts. Your right, it's a relative ruler when you compare Rummy with Biden. I'm with you here.

331 posted on 03/12/2006 7:01:51 AM PST by PrinceOfCups (Just the facts, Ma'am.)

Well put Miss Marple

368 posted on 03/12/2006 7:14:41 AM PST by snugs (An English Cheney Chick - BIG TIME)

Thanks, Miss Marple, for the advice against fractious debate and the call for unity. Lately there has been a tendency to take a "deductive" approach to rating candidates. Let me explain.

Candidate A says: "I believe we should (whatever issue is under consideration)".

Those opposed to that relative position immediately start the chants of "Not qualified" or "Not Conservative enough" and threaten to sit out the election rather than "compromise their principles". I say chant because they typically repeat (and embellish) their charges at every opportunity. Soon you have a guy with an indelible stain (usually undeserved) fighting this baggage instead of his opponents.

What we should be doing (IMHO) is doing inductive advocacy. Giving positive attributions where deserved with the final candidate meeting the most of our desires.

I started to write a critique of Allen's performance on Meet the Depressed which took a line somewhere between onyx and KyleM (Yes, I saw the same MTP too!). Your call for caution caused me to stop and rethink my criticism. My original assessment was to "damn with faint praise" Allen by referring to the interview as a talk with "Dumb and Dumber". I realize that this is unfair. I see that Allen is getting better at his talking points, but the thing that frustrated me no end was his "Senatorial" approach to debate. You know what I'm referring to - that phony "My esteemed colleague" crap. Too many times he gave away the contest to that dip-Shiite biden by falling on this old habit. One time he did it by giving credit to biden, and then tried to correct himself (Note to Allen: You can't unring a bell, and you can't take it back once said!).

IMO Allen let timmy hang him up on the abortion issue. This will come back to haunt him until he enumerates exactly his position (I believe that this is the sticking point that KyleM was saying). He could have avoided it by being more clear in his expression of his position. He set the premise by saying that "Times have changed since RvW was imposed". He could have easily deflected timmy (when timmy pressed on the "Will you overturn RvW?" by saying (in addition to the constitutionally correct "It's a States Rights issue") by saying "Perhaps it's time to revisit it". Obviously he is trying to straddle some sort of line, so this would be a compromise position of sorts, but at least it would have been more assertive than fumbling for an answer to little lord timmy.

Please understand that, right now, I consider Allen to be my personal front-runner for the presidential nod. My point is that:

1. It's still too early make our final choice
2. It's an evolving contest on very uneven ground.
3. It would be a foolish mistake to damage a good candidate by trashing him prematurely.
4. This rant is not against any particular FReeper, just against what I see as an unfortunate predilection to take assessments or criticisms and project them too far.

Back to lurk-mode ;'}

425 posted on 03/12/2006 7:38:14 AM PST by rockrr (Never argue with a man who buys ammo in bulk...)

We had best focus on 2006 so that the President continues with a strong political mandate. If he barely has a majority in the house and/or senate he is going to have his burden doubled by the media.

President Bush does not deserve such disrespect from republicans.

476 posted on 03/12/2006 7:55:06 AM PST by OldFriend (HELL IS TOO GOOD FOR OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA)

To: Miss Marple; onyx; Howlin; hipaatwo

Mafia's Role in Ports Also Raises Concerns
Associated Press ^ | Saturday March 11, 5:59 pm ET | David B. Caruso,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594980/posts

489 posted on 03/12/2006 8:01:28 AM PST by Mo1 ("Stupidity is also a gift from God, but it should not be abused." Pope John Paul II)

I don't really have a favorite candidate right now, but I do know this: I am voting for whoever gets the nomination, even if it is McInsane or Huckabee or Frist. The reason? NO DEMOCRAT SHOULD GET TO APPOINT CABINET MEMBERS AND CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY!!! I implore those of you who carry grudges against one or more candidates, or who are single issue voters, PLEASE think about Biden in the Pentagon!!! No and no and no!! We have to stick together and keep this from happening!

That needs to be said and repeated over and over. Thank you for saying it.

512 posted on 03/12/2006 8:08:57 AM PST by SwatTeam

"I don't really have a favorite candidate right now, but I do know this: I am voting for whoever gets the nomination, even if it is McInsane or Huckabee or Frist."

"The reason? NO DEMOCRAT SHOULD GET TO APPOINT CABINET MEMBERS AND CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY!!!"

"I implore those of you who carry grudges against one or more candidates, or who are single issue voters, PLEASE think about Biden in the Pentagon!!! No and no and no!! We have to stick together and keep this from happening!" ---

May I bold that?

****

624 posted on 03/12/2006 9:00:47 AM PST by beyond the sea (The definition of a 'Targeted Tax Cut' is ........................ you ain't gettin' it .)

I'm with you, Miss M. A splintered Republican vote is unthinkable.

625 posted on 03/12/2006 9:00:52 AM PST by hershey

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794