Holding Your Nose, AKA the Lesser of Two Evils (Vanity)

[Ultra Sonic 007]

It boggles the mind.

First of all, it's only a few months after the 2006 elections ended, and we're already on the move towards the 2008 elections. I'm sorry, but doesn't Bush have two years left? A lot can change until then.

Secondly, let's look at some of the current frontrunners for the GOP.

Mitt Romney. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani.

Romney has flip-flopped on positions many times, so I wouldn't give him my vote. John McCain, despite his strong conservative rating from the ACU (lifetime of 83), he is partially responsibility for the travesty of McCain-Feingold, aka CFR. He is also a supporter of amnesty. Sorry.

Giuliani, although strong on national defense, is a devout Leftist. Pro-abortion. Pro-gun control. Pro-homosexual rights. He embraces illegal immigration. It stuns me that he has as large a following on Free Republic as he does.

There are far better candidates out there. Tom Tancredo (lifetime rating of 99). Sam Brownback (lifetime rating of 95). Duncan Hunter (lifetime rating of 92).

So why?

Why are so many going to hold their noses and compromise their beliefs? Name recognition? Why? It bewilders me.

We have Pro-Life candidates in Hunter, Brownback, and Tancredo. We have anti-illegal immigration and Pro-border control candidates in Hunter and Tancredo (this is where Brownback slips up; support for a guest worker program? Voted yes on allowing illegals access to Social Security? No thanks.). We have pro-second amendment candidates in all three (NRA gave Hunter an A+, and both Brownback and Tancredo an A). All three are supportive of the War on Terror.

So please. Tell me. Why not vote for any of these three (particularly Tancredo and Hunter; Brownback's position on immigration irks me)? Why not?

Who cares about name recognition at this point? It's 2007. November 2008 is a long way away. A lot can change between now and then.

I refuse to compromise on MY beliefs in this matter. I will not vote for a candidate who is socially no different from the socialists on the Left. Hanging up your hat at this point is akin to giving up.

Don't.

Vote for Hunter. Vote for Tancredo. Get the word out.

[MichiganConservative]

The MSM is promoting Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and McCain because they think they could get social legislation passed (gun control, socialized medicine) that would kill off what's left of conservativism.

If the MSM is for it, you know it's good for us. What is wrong with some FRepers who refuse to bow down to their arbitrary authority?

Cthulu has real authority. He will eat your soul.

[TomGuy]

Voting for the R because he/she is the R is how those so-called RINOs get elected.

Until the R-conservatives take a stand and push a candidate, the R-countryclub-bigbusiness control the party and the nomination of their favorite.

Unless the R-conservatives take that stand early, the R-countryclub-bigbusiness wing will set the agenda and determine the nominee.

So, which of the candidates appeal to the R-conservatives and which appeal to the R-countryclub-bigbusiness. It seems that there are two distinct slates. The so-called front runners (ironically, the same names also being pushed by the MSM) seem to fit snugly with one side, whereas the so-called 'lesser' candidates seem to fig snugly with the other side.

Not all conservatives are Republicans. Not all Republicans are conservatives. Until the conservatives wake up to that fact, they can't mount an effective counter to either the Lib-Centrist Dems or the Centrist Big Business Country Club Republicans.

The Southern/Reagan/Bluedog Democrats face a similar situation with the liberal in their party. Their liberals force their slate leftward through the primaries; then centrist for the National.

Image what would happen if the Southern/Reagan/Bluedog Democrats [who helped elect Reagan, for example] and the R-conservatives decided to work together for 08. They could get a real conservative in the White House, and both would benefit. But alas, the DNC and the RNC know that won't happen because the conservative D's and the R's are too steeped in party to ever work together.

Ironically, those conservatives of both parties, and a similar percentage of conservative Independents working together could elect any candidate. Each group probably represents a good 40% of each group/party electorate, and when combined, could easily represent 60% or more of the general electorate.

But, instead, the conservatives will remain party loyal and pull the lever, respectively, for the D or R and get what they deserve -- because they are party loyalists -- and the DNC and RNC expect that of the good little sheeple.

[TheBattman]

but he has got to correct his position on illegal immigration and come up with a REALLY GOOD excuse why he appeared to have gotten it wrong before. There is a place for loyaty to Bush, but not when he is as wrong as he is when it comes to immigration.

Yeah - he can pull a John Kerry... and explain his flip-flop.

[MichiganConservative]

Voting for the R because he/she is the R is what Free Republic is all about.

[Fawn]

You could be right....if he becomes more known I'll change that tagline :) I want the most conservative candidate possible....but if nothing is known about other candidates s these months go by.....and it comes to Rudi or Hitlery.....everybody better get behind Rudi instead of sulking.

[antisocial]

I agree with you Duncan Hunter is good. Thanks for the thread. I'm a Tancredo supporter, but will support Hunter if Tancredo can't last.

[nctexan]

"The new GOP has decided it will jettison the social and fiscal conservatives."

I disagree. People are talking like some sinister GOP cabal has engineered the three "RINO's" into national prominence.

More realistically, they are there because they have put themselves there. The others so far have not articulated a message or accomplishments that has struck a chord with the national masses.

Yes these three get a lot of MSM attention (some due to their liberal views on issues). However, McCain is known due to his POW story and high profile in the senate. Giuliani of course from 9/11. Romney as a highly visible R governor in an ultra D state... plus his Olympic accomplishments.

Let's face it, we come into this election with a weak stable of candidates for a national election. So it's up to 'us as the new GOP' to put the future leaders of our country into office at all levels, push them to excel nationally, and vote for whatever R candidates emerge in our next round of elections.

[Coldwater Creek]

At least Dole was a decent human being. Not presidential, but a decent human being. I could hold my nose for him over Bubba.

[saganite]

Well, Reagan was 69 when he was elected so that's pretty darn close. Then of course there's Bill Clinton, the first black president and his co-president (female reportedly) Hillary. Don't know about Mayors but I bet at least one Prez was a mayor at one time in his political career.

[Smitty]

I happen to actually that there will be a Last Day when all men and women will give account for deeds done in my life. I do not need to try to justify a vote for a man who believes in the right to choose to kill unborn babies. Believe it or don't, there are millions with that same mindset. An enabler of abortion is simply not an option. Period.

Thank you! Those are my sentiments exactly. I will have to face judgement someday. I feel if I vote pro abort there is blood on my hands as well.

[don-o]

Voting for the R because he/she is the R is what Free Republic is all about.

You would get an an argument from our host on that I believe. Do a "search user" on Jim Robinson for the past week or so for a clear call that we reject the leftward trend in the R Party.

[kalee]

They say they don't need us to win, but see how quickly they will blame us when they lose.

[Sam Cree]

The Democrat Party is unquestionably and purposely the party of the Left, the party of socialism. The trouble is, the Republican party is not really a clear alternative. One would like to think that Republicans would oppose statism in all its forms, but this is hardly the case. They're better than the Dems on all counts, but one cannot avoid observing that even Republicans are drifting steadily leftwards, steadily toward more powerful government. Recently it seems our party is rushing to the Left more than drifting, to tell the truth.

It's very discouraging, and I don't expect us to achieve easy victory over the Dems without firm conservative principles of our own, by which I primarily mean limited government. But I'm not sure how important a place even limited government holds in modern "conservatism."

[MichiganConservative]

You could have fooled me.

[Kaslin]

Don't tell me who to vote for. I will vote for who I think is best, and it isn't McInsane

[don-o]

huh?

[lentulusgracchus]

Newt would be interesting at the very least improve the debate IMO

Newt needs to be in Congress. He proved he couldn't handle Clinton in the '95 government-shutdown coup. He proved he couldn't handle the Speaker's job, which also shackled him as an advocate of conservativism.

He needs to be in Congressional leadership, preferably the House -- he needs to be Majority Leader in the House or Senate, House better than Senate because of the clubbiness of the latter which would cramp Newt's style.

Newt's a cheerleader, and we need a cheerleader in a cheerleader's job. We also need him as a conservative sitting in the decisionmaking circles of Congress. He could do a good job in the Bully Pulpit, but the MSM will never let him get there -- they singled him out for destruction immediately after the 1994 elections and went to work on him (I saved that "Man of the Year" hate-photo TIME put on their cover), and they basically hung a frame around him. He'd never get to the White House.

[MichiganConservative]

But I'm not sure how important a place even limited government holds in modern "conservatism."

The American sheeple do not want it. It won't happen. Things will not get better. The sheeple get what they deserve.

[lentulusgracchus]

Thanks for the flowers. 'Preciate it.

[catpuppy]

Hunter's a good guy but the likelihood of his becoming the nominee, much less President, is about the same as for Kucinich on the Dem side. Unless the GOP rallies around one of the major candidates, Hillary! and her VP Obama will coast.