Posted on 02/10/2007 2:16:42 PM PST by EveningStar
Two days ago, in blogging about the abortion records of the serious GOP Presidential prospects (McCain, Giuliani, Romney), I provoked a great deal of anger by writing off the other current contenders (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Ron Paul, Gilmore, Thompson, Duncan Hunter) as "lesser" candidates who stand no realistic chance of winning primaries or grabbing the nomination. No matter how much you may admire these people, their candidacies are irrelevant – more a bid for attention, or a preparation for future races, than a realistic bid for power...
When, in the last 60 years of Presidential politics, did any obscure underdog manage to defy the odds and win the nomination of the Republican Party?...
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelmedved.townhall.com ...
If so, why are they supporting a gun-grabber? Libertarians, for all their faults, are pro-2nd amendment.
I think he's overestimating the position of Ronald Reagan. Big GOP players didn't even want him at the '76 convention. He was definitely seen as a not-ready for the big leagues.
"They better enlarge the tent,"
Why don't we just ask Hillary to run on the Republican ticket.
That wide enough?
Medved tries to be a realist.
I always liked Medved but got tired of his party over principle mantra.
'Yeah, I remember Stassen. The only reason he's not running this time is that he's dead"
Why should that stop him? With all the dead votes in this country, he now has a real chance!!
Just today I sent a contribution to the Ron Paul 08 exploratory committee.
Is he going to get a large media following? No.
Is he going to be welcomed by the party bigwigs? No.
Do I even think he is going to win? No.
The reason I gave to Ron Paul is because he most reflects what I believe and because it is my money. My 50 bucks doesn't mean anything to the Republican Party. Pro-Death Rudy and Cactus John are making all the noise because they are the choices of the wealthy elites. So let the wealthy elites fund them.
It is only in the primaries that we even have the appearance of a choice. So at least in the primaries I will fund someone I actually like, not someone who is simply less distasteful than his or her opponent.
Then no one is going to beat Hillary, in the primary or general.
I don't have a guy yet, still watching the field. I think I have plenty of time. I also have two votes. A primary, and the election. If Hunter is on the ballot for the primary, he'll get due consideration.
It's more of a winning over losing principle.
I'm goin to the wall for Duncan!!
About as often as vanity threads.
Ron Paul does not support the war in Iraq.
He is no better than the Dems.
Thank You for being true.
Seems like a self-perpetuating mechanism that ensures the front-runners stay in front ("I support them because they are in front"). I wonder if this sort of logic would be applied if it was Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter in the top three. Are these guys screwed by screwed by their ideas and values or by polling-induced follow the leader syndrome? Bah.
McCain and Giuliani will get gushed over. Until the day after the primary. Then they will be portrayed as more extreme than Tom Tancredo. That's the fact.
"Why don't we just ask Hillary to run on the Republican ticket."
There's no need to get nasty, LOL!
We have a field of candidates, and way too much time to listen to them. We each have one vote in the end. The probability that Republican candidate will get mine is 99.9%, no matter which one gets the nomination.
The Republican Party was formed out of an amalgam of previous parties, most of which had essentially collapsed.
American (Known-Nothings), Whigs, Free-Soilers and a good many anti-slavery Democrats.
I'm not sure it's really accurate to pick out one of these groups and say they were precursors. Numerically the largest group were probably ex-Whigs, as was Lincoln.
The GOP formed out of the ferocious opposition to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, with the Democrats' subservience to slaveholders essentially cutting their own throats in the North. Most of those opposed to this Act eventually coalesced into the Republican party. But in its early years it was a very diverse group.
Well said.
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.