Posted on 02/11/2007 6:00:59 AM PST by 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.
So for me, it's Duncan Hunter!
Additionally, many like myself have a particular disdain for candidates that emanate from the legislative branch, especially the senate.
Duncan Hunter is pro-defense and for reducting the size of government. That he is a social conservative should only make him more appealing. So why?
We're not on the same page, but in the same book. I will definitely vote for hunter in the primary and will vote for the R that gets the nomination.
No matter how bad that R is, any R will do my causes better than any D.
These guys' "frontrunnerdom" is a gift of the lying, self-interested MSM spinmeisters.
The New York Times pulled this same crap by booming up Nelson Rockefeller in the 1960's. On the eve of the 1964 convention at the Cow Palace in San Francisco that nominated the great Barry Goldwater, pollsters asked likely or already-chosen delegates to the convention two questions:
The delegates' answers were, Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller had nothing like the delegate support Goldwater did, but the Timesmen succeeded in sowing enough doubt among conservative delegates by their incessant spinning, that a Rockefeller coup d'etat in the convention could have worked.
That's what liberals do. They lie, then they cheat and steal.
Oh, and then later on they recriminate and cover up and point fingers and send people to reeducation camps.
GREAT! I'm right there with you.
But let's face it - the guy is just one of 435 people in the lower chamber of Congress. You guys dreaming of a Hunter nomination are also the first ones checking your Powerball numbers in the morning too.
And if that is what they want, they can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned...
You got that spot on...
So was the first Republican president (Abe Lincoln).
***he is partially responsibility for the travesty of McCain-Feingold, aka CFR. He is also a supporter of amnesty. ****
Yeah : His name is on the bill so I guess he is a little more than partially responsible.
I am not so concerned that he sponsored CFR, anyone can amke a mistake. The part that worries me now is that haiving seen that mistake he ahs done nothing to correct. Its as thoug he knows that CFR took away constitutional rights ,but he doesnt care. CFR needs adjustment, McCain hasne made any effort to correct the wrongs of it, therefore he supports those wrongs.
He voted in favor of Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the Transportation Bill, and dozens of other pork-barrel spending bills. Entitlement reform & limiting the size and power of the federal government is a huge factor for me. Yes, I admire his solid social conservative credentials, but for me, fiscal conservatism trumps social conservatism because if you limit government & reform the tax code, people will be more responsible for themselves and make better choices. Any Republican candidate that doesn't tell the truth about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid shouldn't be elected dog catcher, and Hunter didn't do so in his 26 years in Congress.
Yes, it's called "false dilemma". It's a dishonest polemical stunt.
It tells you a couple of things, though.
One, it tells you the person retailing the argument is dishonest. Two, it tells you that he holds you in contempt.
The nomination process is unacceptable. Candidates are chosen way too soon.
I'd rather elect Hillary than vote for Giuliani.
Anyone in Congress who voted with the Administration and Republican congressional leadership during the last five years would have that problem, unfortunately.
Hunter is the best all-around candidate. Combat veteran, conservative principles, persona, outspoken nature, son who served in Iraq in regards to the current war.
Just some background info on Hunter and his outspoken nature to go where not many(I don't think any) Republicans go with their spineless nature.
Hunter on Abu Ghraib(courtesyhttp://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3128goss_hunter_block.html : )
Probably the single loudest obstructionist voice in the House of Representatives in support of the Cheneyac "Beastman" policy in Iraq has been Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). Hunter has been able to use his position to block any meaningful inquiry into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and at every public opportunity, has railed against those who are demanding such an investigation. He even went after his GOP counterpart in the Senate, John Warner (Va.), for holding three hearings in two weeks on the scandal, practically accusing Warner of treason.
Under great public pressure, Hunter has since held one hearing, for part of one day, and has no intention of having any more. During debate on the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Authorization bill, on May 19, Hunter declared, "We have had enormous publicity the last number of days about the mess at Abu Ghraib. I estimated we have probably devoted as much media attention to that mess involving now, as identified, some seven personnel, as we did to the Normandy invasion. And that is an imbalance. It is time to refocus." What did he want to refocus on? "The 135,000 great personnel doing their job in Iraq."
On June 14, when the committee took up a resolution of inquiry sponsored by some 40 Democrats, demanding the Pentagon be more forthcoming with documents relating to the prison scandal, Hunter placed the 6,000 pages of the report on the abuse and torture of prisoners filed by U.S. Army General Anthony Taguba (the Taguba Report) on a table at the head of the hearing room and railed at the Democrats, "Isn't that enough for you?"
Hunter on Guantanamo(courtesy http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-033125-4935r.htm:)
California Republican Duncan Hunter held a press conference to discuss the treatment of detainees at the island jail, and spent his opening statement going over a daily menu for prisoners that included oven-fried chicken and fresh fruit.
"This is what Osama bin Laden's bodyguards will eat several times a week. Lemon chicken, rice, broccoli, carrots, bread and two types of fruit," Hunter said, inviting a reporter to come eat with him.
Hunter was digging himself out of small hole he got into over the weekend when he said on a news program that the White House is divided over whether to close the jail.
"I think they've come to the conclusion, some members of the White House have come to the conclusion that the legend now, that the legend is different than the fact, and when that's the case you go with the legend that somehow Guantanamo has been a place of abuse and you close it down and you shorten the stories, you shorten the heated debate and you get it off the table and you move on," he said.
For the first (but not last) time in this election cycle:
EVERY vote is for the lesser of two evils.
One good answer is that there has never been a dark horse nominee in the Republican Party in the entire primary-and-caucus era (1972 and onward).
What's seems poossbily different about 2008 now is that there may well be two establishment favorites, instead of one, and they have somewhat overlapping bases. The question is whether this creates more of an opening for the dark horses (of whom Romney is definitely one) or deprives them of even the modest degree of oxygen it takes to have any chance at all.
Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback have their good points, but it's very easy to find not-very-encouraging analogies to them in past elections -- Phil Gramm in 1996 comes to mind.
Here's my prediction: Giuliani will lead the polls into the fall of this year. He will make modest overtures to social conservatives (most likely including a clear commitment to appointing Scalia/Thomas mode Supreme Court justices). McCain will make much more persuasive overtures, having an actual history of pro-life votes. The "true blue" conservatives won't get above low single digits in the polls. At this point, the social conservative leadership is going to have face reality and make their choice between Giuliani and McCain. They'll choose McCain, and McCain will have the nomination wrapped up fast -- by the end of March at the very latest.
How many Congresscritters were in the House back then & what was the U.S. population.
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.