I think you're right.
Arnold could win here, but he's not eligible to run. Reagan would still win here.
What's needed is an almost nationalistic concervative who's more libertarian with regard to social issues, against taxes, and against gun control.
Oh. And who speaks with eloquence and conviction. Someone at home in front of television cameras, while standing up for conservativism and especially, for America.
If we can find someone like that - we cannot lose. They'll roll Hillary and Obama like the socialist weenies they are.
But it's important we find someone with that ability to communicate. Bush is right on most things (except immigration) but he can't talk for beans.
What do you mean by your tagline "Election 2006: For Republicans, the results were comprehensive"?
Are you glad that Republicans lost, "it serves them right" -- and you are joyous that the Dems are now in power?
Sounds like your ego is more important than the fate of the country.
If THIS is what your tagline means, then YOU are personally responsible for the devastation the Dems are already starting to do to the country. Is that what "conservatism" means to you -- put the liberal Dems in power?
THAT is what your tagline implies to me.
If this is not the case, please explain what you mean and you might want to change it, so it doesn't create the wrong impression.
But it's important we find someone with that ability to communicate. Bush is right on most things (except immigration) but he can't talk for beans.So true. I used to blame his handlers, but I've finally come round to the idea that he is just incapable of connecting with folks through the TV lens. Which is too bad, because I still believe that W is one of the best Presidents we've ever had. Despite his slip-ups (like signing CFR).