Oh, this is starting to sound like the "blame America first" talking points.
YES, we need to stop illegals. BUT we should put the blame for 911 where it's due. Islamicfascists.
We already have the dangerous democrat party. Let's not become like them. Let's not hate the democrats more than we hate the terrorists. Let's not hate democrats more than we love America. We have seen the democrat party lose because of that.
My question is who is that republican candidate who will not only represent our domestic beliefs but also fight and win the war against Islamicfascists and take down Iran and North Korea? Who is he?
I'm no fan of Giuliani but I am definately going to look at all of him (or her depending on the day)but Im all ears. Who is that President so I can also stand behind him?
Personally, I think this present White House is much too pc in this war and I want a warrior as President. I want somebody who will take no prisoners, who will not cave and give terrorists POW status and someone who will not charge our brave soldiers for murder when they engage the enemy.
Who is that republican who can win the general election?
"Who is that republican who can win the general election?"
Back to the original point, finally, but let's re-word the question, as this seems to have formed the basis of the current debate.
The final candidate will be one that manages to somehow balance three,often-conflicting requirements, the best. Those requirements will be:
1. Perceived ability to abide by the requirements and necessities of the job which are dictated and conditioned by the fact that we live in a republic, and not a democracy (as some here seem to believe). There are rules,right down the line, and whoever can (or gives the impression that he/she can) follow them, scores the first point.
2. Demonstrates an ability to navigate the rocks and shoals of the wide array of opinion, and often, stupidity, thrown up by the disparate constituencies that make up this party. He/she will have to strike a balance between the federalists, the gun righters, the self-righteous religious, the big-money interests, the political theorists, and the great, unwashed masses who follow and/or understand politics at a generally shallow level, and attach themselves because they simply like the appelation "republican". The trick is to avoid offending enough of them to keep them at home or voting for another candidate by selectively and strategically kow-towing to particular groups. If he/she can do this, they score the second point.
3. He/she has enough appeal to reach the "independant" vote (more likely characterized as the "What are you going to bribe me with?" or the "I'm really a retard, but can be swayed by someone who looks "nice"", or the, "Gee, he/she has really good taste in shoes!") vote. This represents about 20-25% of the electorate. This is the part of the electorate which is "turned off" by politics. Unfortunately, they are not as "turned off" as they are disinterested, or waiting for some sort of handout (for democrats: increased social spending, for republicans: tax cuts). Whoever can prove (by way of polling data and a number of other ridiculous machinations) more acceptable to the (ironically!) least-interested segment of the population, scores the third point.
So, the question really is:
What republican can manage to mollify enough of the "base" (i.e. hardcore politcal junkies, traditional voters (i.e. I vote republican because Daddy did), or people with a specific axe to grind)), be packaged as a "really swell guy" to those who don't really care or, don't have the same level of intelligence God gave to an Irish Setter, and still manage to avoid the ideological and rhetorical landmines within his own party?
If you can answer that, you have your candidate.
Personally, I like Newt. It's simply a bonus that he can think and act without the need to get permission from "the base".