Posted on 01/05/2007 9:01:39 AM PST by Brian_Baldwin
LOL, LOL, LOL
What's the problem, anyway? Many have said that Hunter's main drawback is that nobody knows who he is. I'm helping to get the name out there. I'm sorry if you find that irksome.
Tony, you may have a reading comprehension problem.
Making me laugh doesn't make me irksome. I think you are funny in a funny sort of way.
Well, besides being childish you are being silly. If you want to promote your man, do it on your own threads. That's what you are doing isn't it? So keep it that way. Post your Hunter buttons on your own thread. If you are having problems convincing Freepers about your guy, well just post more Hunter threads.
I find it totally childish for you to post a Hunter ad on on every Rudy thread that comes along.
And no, I'm not mad, I just find lots of silliness around - and I call it as I see it.
Pretty silly supporting a Liberal on a conservative website, whoops...
BUMP!!!
And Rudy, a man with ZERO military experience, and education from a fourth rate law school, and serious ethical issues would make a good choice?
Rudy got a JD from New York University, currently ranked number 4 among all law schools in the nation, ahead of my law school, the University of Michigan. It was in the top 10 back when Rudy was there. What on God's Green Earth has taken you across the River Styx? Is your loathing of the man so great, that you have abandoned any semblece of fairness and reasonable analysis? I have "known" you for a long time, and have respected you. This kind of thing is not the stuff of the Clemenza that I have known.
"Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures."
- National Review Online 2/11/2005
This is really a slippery slope issue. We all know that the embryos are harvested human beings. How could he possibly say that his view on abortion is in contrast to his view on ebryonic research?
Maybe situations like these bring the real person to the surface, and some people are just truly ugly. The insults they dish out to others are just a reflection of their own inner self, reflecting who they truly are.
Abortion is probably the bottom of my concerns for the next election. Call me a rino or not-conservative, I don't care. Abortion is a 30 year old issue that really needs to just drop off the radar for elections in lieu of quite frankly much more pressing matters.
I don't care what people's stance on abortion is. Pro-life, Pro-choice doesn't matter to me because abortion is a DEAD issue for both sides, like it or not. The only people it's not dead for is hardcore rights clinging to the hope that maybe they can get Roe V. Wade overturned and hardcore lefts worrying that the right will get it overturned. In the end nobody honestly cares except the fringes on both sides.
Lets say just for S&G's the SCOTUS does manage to overturn Roe V. Wade sometime that is just gonna throw the issue right back to the States. Many if not most of those States are still going to have legalized abortions for some time until the legislatures enact new laws locally or people put up some propositions or State constitutional amendments.
Nobody is EVER going to gain or lose my vote based on their stance on abortion. I don't care enough to research embryonic stem cell research to make an informed opinion there. Either way, again more pressing issues for our nation then embryonic stem cells.
You do not pay attention to ballot initiatives. And, if you mean caving in by "soft pedaling," I want no part of it. "Soft pedaling" Mark Foley was a brilliant strategy on social issues.
"Soft pedaling" illegal immigration was a brilliant strategy on national defense and taxes.
I have about a million more "soft pedal" issues. ("soft-peddle" was a brilliant Freudian slip, but I ain't buying it.)
Slapping a Madison Avenue designer label on a liberal and running him as a Republican is not a winning strategy. Allowing the country to rot from the inside out is not going to win the war and neither is allowing treason going unpunished within our midst.
Republicans can push a social agenda on the shelf observing Democrats make policy for the next generation or unite to emphasize the issues that attract, rather than repel the broad mass of Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats.
After a defeat, the tendency of both parties is to redouble their efforts to push an unpopular social agenda on the electorate. The Republicans did it in 1964 and the Democrats did it in 1984. That's when you wind up with 140 Representatives in a 435-member House and 33 Senators in a 100-member chamber, as the Republicans had in the 89th Congress.
Ideological purity is tempting and much easier than building a majority with people with whom one may disagree on many issues.
It doesn't matter. By time the 08 elections get here, Bush and his socialist supporters in the Nanny People's House will have made them all legal, so it will not matter anyway.
2008 will not be a banner year for Republicans or Republican candidates. Giuliani has been married three times including a cousin, McCain has staked out a position to the right of Bush on Iraq and Romney is a member of LDS, a denomination I respect but which is viewed by many voters as a cult. Additionally, unless the Republican nominee distances himself or herself from Bush, he or she will campaign bearing the Iraq albatross. If support for Iraq is 35% now, it's likely to drop to a record low in polling history by 2008.
In such a case, I think nominating Condi Rice would be a creative way to trump a probable Roddham candidacy, but she has declared she won't run. Alternatively, Rudy's the best of a bad lot. If the race is competitive, potentially he could pick off toss-up blue states such as New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and hold Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico. Rudy is credible on national security and crime because of 9-11 and his days as a prosecutor. He's pro-business. The party won't win with another Sunbelt WASP male instructing voters how to conduct their lives. There will be red state defections this time. The party ought to focus on keeping Congerssional party strength close, so it can recapture the House and Senate in 2010 or 2014.
Guess I touched a nerve, eh? BTW, people have already been doing that (posting Rudy stuff on the Hunter threads) so you'd be later to that party.
If conseervative Republicans hold to their declaration not to support a Giuliani or Romney if nominated, we're looking at a 40-45 state Democrat blow-out in 2008. Bush won two nail-biters in 2000 & 2004. The party won't continue to win if it permanently writes off the entire Northeast and Pacific Coast, and most of the Midwest. Most of these now solidly blue states were once solidly Republican.
As I said, be my guest!
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.