Posted on 08/21/2006 6:16:02 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Then let's start with the ones in our own party.
George W. Bush was the "favorite" in all the polls in 1998. He went on to get the nomination.
Allen was my favorite until he 1) gave credibility to Sheehan then demonstrated he had not learned a thing about the methods of the Treason Media. He may not even win his seat back after the Apology debacle which had to disgust many of his supporters.
That is NOT leadership I am sorry to say.
Social conservatives are not being tossed out but are threatening to take their vote and stay home. That is not the attitude of a responsible ally.
Did he not accept campaign contributions from someone involved with them? That associates him right there. You can't claim dirty contributors against Hillary Clinton unless you say the same about Rudy Giuliani.
"You probably didn't like Some Like It Hot either."
I can't say I'd be giddy in anticipation of a remake in the oval office, no.
"Claiming Rudi is affliated with the Russian Mafia is a LIE."
Oh, yeah?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=323
Koch is also preferable to Hillary.
Dear justshutupandtakeit,
"Social conservatives are not being tossed out but are threatening to take their vote and stay home."
Nope. If you nominate someone who is the complete enemy of the social conservative agenda, you've tossed out social conservatives.
Just ask Jake The Goose. He's more than happy to make us "walk the plank."
sitetest
Who won New Hampshire? John McCain. But, in the South Carolina primary, Bush defeated McCain by painting McCain as too liberal, something McCain himself made painfully easy to do. Do you honestly think the country has changed that much in eight years, as far as the nature of Republican primary voters? You're in la la land if you do. What Bush did to McCain in South Carolina will be done again, to Guiliani. And to McCain.
Hey! we can't let a little thing like the FACTS get in the way of a good anti Rudy story.
These Giuliani threads generate as much hysteria as anything going these days. The rhetoric from the Rudy haters is a riot!
Bill Richardson or Bayh would be formidable candidates.
Hillary cannot be allowed to obtain the White House. Any military secrets left over from Bill's Fire Sale would be sold within days.
That cannot be allowed to happen even if it means voting for Guiliani or McCain.
There is no "principle" which could possibly justify such a disaster.
Hilarious stuff. How many convictions has been obtained, how many indictments? Anything other than Hot Air available?
Actually it was clear that Bush would be the nominee in 2000. His path was so smooth that many of the Ultra-Conservatives claimed he was "annointed". Perhaps you are having a convenient memory lapse wrt that time.
I am saying that Guilt by Association does not work for those who look past the surface.
By whom? Guliani and McCain will be the only two with the money to go all out in the way Bush did in South Carolina.
Please tell me you don't believe Gary Bauer could have taken down John McCain.
The two front runners in 1998-1999 were the front runners in 2000 and throughout the primaries. Bush was always ahead of McCain, and McCain was never going to beat him in southern primaries.
Allen is fighting too hard for his Senatorial life in Virginia to do much in the presidential area. Besides, he needs a personal coach to keep him from making a fool of himself.
The only other realistic choice is Newt Gingrich. His only real accomplishment was helping Republicans get elected in 1994. He was not an effective Speaker of the House, and fawned all over Clinton every chance he got.
But, maybe he can unite conservatives.
This is about what we expect from the "truth machine" ready to "destroy" Guiliani.
Now, if Giuliani moves right on social issues, pledges to support originalist judges and picks an up and coming hard-core conservative as a running mate I'd be willing to listen.
"By whom? Guliani and McCain will be the only two with the money to go all out in the way Bush did in South Carolina."
That's the big question, isn't it? One thing that is not questionable is that foisting these two liberals upon religious conservatives isn't going to go over well at all.
Association with those CLAIMED to be associated with the Russian Mafia is far from proof. Hillary's funds can be DIRECTLY traced to criminal givers some of whom have been CONVICTED or who have fled the country or who have CONFESSED to such activity.
NO politician has all Pure as the driven snow contributions. But claiming an "association" requires more proof than dubious contributions.
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.