Posted on 01/17/2007 7:55:38 AM PST by seanmerc
Mine votes counted 5 out of 7.
Geez, even Schwarzenegger is proving that. Hillary has it. So does McCain and Giulianni. If conservatives have any chance at all they MUST beat a strategic retreat and go with a nominee that they don't care for, but has CELEBRITY. Come back another day with a conservative who has it...because if it's Hillary that is the next President, there won't be anything left to come back to in eight years.
What Morris is saying is that one of the obscure contenders could get nominated, but Morris knows that this GOP contender has no chance of winning in the general election. That's why Morris is confident that Hillary will win.
Under these conditions I will go farther and say that Hillary or any Democrat would win.
We need to do what`s right. If the candidate for the GOP is not pro life, then it would be better for Dems to win.
So in order to back a pro-life candidate you would be happy to lose and have more liberal pro-abortion judges in the courts, gay marriage, more taxes, less rights and freedoms, etc. You are willing to sacrifice every inroad made by the GOP because the GOP candidate isn't pro-life, even if that candidate pledges to appoint constitutional originalist judges in the mold of Scalia and Alito.
Answer this: How has GW Bush stopped abortions? Did anyone under his administration stop a woman from trying to abort her child? Are abortions illegal under his administration? Are women who want to abort not allowed to do so because GW wont let them? Do they face imprisonment or any kind of punishment for aborting their babies?
Get this, abortion is legal in America even though I don't like it and I will NEVER have an abortion. But I, or you, or anyone can't stop a woman from having one. The only thing I can do is talk to her and try to make her see the light. The only thing a President can do, and something GW has done, is to appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court. And the only thing left now is to spread the word about the sanctity of life in the hopes that eventually women (and men for that matter) come to the pro-life view.
And if a winning GOP candidate whose views on abortion are somewhat liberal, BUT has promised to appoint originalist judges to the Courts, I will take that winning candidate in a heartbeat.
And just for your information, when Ronald Reagan was the governor of CA, he signed the most liberal abortion law at the time, and he was pro-choice! He later changed his views on the issue.
I agree. You don't be a somebody with a nobody - both Hillary and Obama are somebodies. The GOP needs a star to battle a star, not a forgettable zero.
When I read non-logical posts like the one I read above, the totally self-absorbed point of view in their “me-me-me” issue makes me sick. They disregard the country, the war, the sacrifices of so many who are dying for freedom, so a Democrat could win the presidency just because the GOP candidate isn't quite the pro-life candidate they want. Those are not conservatives, and not even Republicans, just some twisted selfish fools.
The places where we can advance an agenda is parental notification, federal funding, partial birth abortion, etc.
Hunter might make an ideal VP choice for the sake of social conservatives. But he has NO chance of winning. He has no name recognition, no "gravitas" on a national scale, and lacked the media savvy to wait until he was ready to blitz the airwaves before announcing his candidacy.
On top of all that, history stands against him like a brick wall. No candidate who was neither a former Governor, a former Senator, or a retired General credited with a war victory has won a major party nomination since Wendell Willkie (who lost in a landslide to Franklin Roosevelt). The last nominee to rise only as high as the House was John W. Davis, who lost to Calvin Coolidge.
IMHO, Hunter is laying the groundwork for a 2012 run. I think he knows darn well he's not going to be nominated this time around, and that should the unexpected occur and he is, he will not win.
If Hillary or Obama or Edwards are nominated, Gingrich could mop the floor with them intellectually. It has been a long, long time since someone has caught Newt being at a loss for words. If he is smart as I think he is, he could deflect any criticism of his personal life and lack of military service by pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in by-passing those requirements when it came to Bill Clinton. After all, Slick came into the White House with a bad reputation and came out with a worse one, and was on record in a personal letter speaking on behalf of people who "loath[e] the military."
Anyway, I don't think Hillary wants to get into finger-pointing about messing around in Washington. She may not be smarter than Newt, but she's at least that smart.
As regards Newt, I have no problems with his ideas (although some I've heard border on naive/childish), it's just as a person he is a degenerate. I want a decent individual in the oval office. My point was the Newt would have problems with the conservative base. As for Hunters media savvy, I've seen/heard him four times now and he's done well, in my opinion. He has a knack for answering direct questions honestly.
It seems to me the history lesson is that over the last forty years the country has elected many "firsts" and "uncommons". If somebody is nominated, they have the ability to win. As an aside, I honestly believe that Hunter the better man as compared to the entire crew running in either party. I think the American people, or at least those who'd consider voting for a republican, will recognize this.
Let's hope so - I can't stand that Webb. I hope he keeps sticking his stupid foot in his big stupid mouth. He is a blowhard - like Specter. Now Allen is out and so is Rick Santorum, who was a great senator.
Reagan-Republicans know or should know that the current #1 problem is elimination of the Islamaniac threat to Western Civilization. Their support will be conditioned upon a candidate's willingness and ability to continue that fight.
Reaganism was essentially fighting the Nation's primary enemy and tax cuts. Anything else was subject to compromise.
America is not a conservative nation and will not support an extreme conservative program. We must make do with what is really out there and disabuse ourselves of the belief that the rest of the nation agrees with us.
Immigration was ROUNDLY rejected by the voter as a major issue when power was handed over to those who planned, organized, manned and lead massive demonstrations of Illegals last fall. Harshly anti-Illegal candidates were creamed in the last election. Anyone still believing that is a winning issue is deluding themselves.
It will be an interesting debate. It sounds as though you've been listening to Grover Norquist; I think all that bowing down to east going on in his household may be effecting him.
Hunter was not a major spokesman ALWAYS on the National Media talking about the problem of Illegals.
"Many of the democrats (Kansas, Arizona, North Carolina) elected came out against illegals including those states as much or more than their opponents." Strong conservatives across the nation were decimated and the media let Democrats get away with the pretense that they would do ANYTHING positive in this regard.
You can be assured that the "argument" is over since the electorate threw out the only institution standing in the way of amnesty, the GOP House. And it you think this will cause the People to turn on the Democrats you are delusional.
"It sounds as though you've been listening to Grover Norquist;[Haven't heard a word but the lesson is obvious] I think all that bowing down to east going on in his household may be effecting him." Not sure what that last clause is intended to mean but no one is bowing down to the "east".
Selection of a leader capable of standing up to our enemies abroad and neutralizing the enemy at home, the Treason Media, is crucial. At this juncture there is only one man capable of doing that that I see, Rudolf Guiliani.
Everything else must take a back seat to achieving victory over those enemies.
What do you guys think of Mike Huckabee as a choice?
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.