Posted on 12/10/2006 11:57:45 AM PST by FairOpinion
"Since Roe v. Wade, we have had at least 16 years of solid pro-life Republicans...and that's stopped abortion...how?"
Very accurate though highly unfortunate observation.
What we're told by MSM are "moderates" are really liberals.
If that list is all that the Republicans have to offer, then I'll probably be choosing the Constitution Party candidate.
"My litmus test is the observance of the canditate's Christian faith, thru their actions and not just their words. "
Oh, goody -- another Hillary voter, do you think she qualifies and passes your litmus test? -- Because that's whom you are going to get, unless you vote for an electable R in the primary and THE R candidate, whoever it will be in the general election. I do hope it's not going to be McCain -- that's why I plan to vote for whoever the electable R candidate will be whether Giulianin, or Newt or if someone else rises.
"Better yet, Romney has been faithfully married to one wife for almost 40 years and has reared outstanding and accomplished children from that union."
So what, Reagan raised 2 brats - the only one that turned out well was the adopted one. He was also divorced, and he was once a Democrat.
Sadly Reagan could never get nominated today! I'm not saying that Rudy is Reagan - far from it.
I do wish our bench were a little deeper though. I'm not thrilled about any of the nominees.
Romney is a Mormon. Most of the Mormons I have met are decent people, but I (and many others) find Mormonism just... kooky, on the level of Scientology kooky.
Newt comes with lots of baggage.
Duncan Hunter lacks executive resume.
McCain is.... McCain. He's an angry old man with cancer.
Rudy needs to bolster his Conservative credentials. He has the leadership gene but I'm not sure I'd like where he'd lead us.
Sam Brownback has no chance. Senators don't get elected President.
Condi isn't running and the State Dept got to her anyway.
If the primary was today, we'd be pretty effed.
We can discuss what conservatism means, but I can tell you what conservatism is NOT: voting for leftist liberals. Anyone who either votes for them directly, or throws their vote away, knowing that it will help the leftist socialists, is NO CONSERVATIVE and have no right to claim to be one.
These pretend conservatives gave us 8 years of Clinton, gave us the current Dem Congress and seem to be all set to give us 8 years of Hillary. I shudder to think what Hillary supported by a Dem Congress will do to the country.
Did Bush get rid of abortion? Rudy is in favor of strong, constitutionalist, judges. You get that and you are a lot closer to overturning Roe V Wade than if Hillary is elected and stacks the court with more Ginsbergs.
"Giuliani is nothing more than a mayor."
Not that I'm a huge Rudy for Pres fan, but realistically NYC has a larger population than a number of states
Dean was governor of Vermont, for hecks sake.
The murder of unborn children is beyond my worst dreams.
I looked it up the other day, and NYC ranks 12th among state populations. And it's more than twice as large as the next biggest city.
Another, somewhat related article:
San Francisco protesters urge Pelosi to pursue impeachment of Bush
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751476/posts
And guess who is in line to be President, if Bush and Cheney would get impeached?
Can you say President Pelosi?
Romney is a Mormon. Most of the Mormons I have met are decent people, but I (and many others) find Mormonism just... kooky, on the level of Scientology kooky.I agree.
I don't know. I saw an interesting NY poll a while back showing Giuliani losing in a hypothetical Senate bid to Hillary but winning a Presidential bid among the same polled.
I don't know. I saw an interesting NY poll a while back showing Giuliani losing in a hypothetical Senate bid to Hillary but winning a Presidential bid among the same polled.
Polls two years out are not exactly reliable barometers.
Rudy MIGHT be able to win PA instead of NY, McCain can win Michigan.
If Giuliani runs, Hillary would have problems in New York State, which she needs to get elected. If anyone else is the Republican nominee, give Hillary the edge in New York.
If Giuliani runs, Hillary would have problems in New York State, which she needs to get elected. If anyone else is the Republican nominee, give Hillary the edge in New York.
Why would the Republicans nominate Santorum, who couldn't win in his own State? How about some reality here?
How about a Santorum/Allen ticket? Then real conservatives would be happy, and Hillary would carry all 50 States.
I saw a post election poll from 1992 that showed Bush with a fairly strong conservative base (85%). It was the moderates and independents that swung for Perot.
"How about a Santorum/Allen ticket? Then real conservatives would be happy, and Hillary would carry all 50 States."
===
After reading the first sentence, for a moment I thought you were serious -- then I read the rest. That is exactly what the consequence would be.
Some people don't seem to understand that you have to be elected and be in power, to be able to do anything.
The real reason the Republicans couldn't implement a more conservative agenda was precisely because of the obstruction of the Dems, so what did the conservative do, elect more Dems. How self destructive is that?!
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.