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.
The Republicans had idea fatigue. This is why term limits are a good thing- these guys forgot how to be Conservative or Republican, and joined the Congressional party.
Party mottos? "Because it's good for you!" and "Don't you know who I am?"
In the primaries, I will vote for Hunter.
In the national election, I will vote for the person with the R by his name. Maybe.
If you are sure that NY city will be destroyed with the Lizard Queen sitting on the throne, that would be a reason for many people in America to support her. If you say Hollywood would be nuked as well, she'll get about 90% of the vote.
Cthulu would like to have NY City destroyed as well. He want to eat their souls.
Maybe the links to the issues will FINALLY make the RINO-rudy-rooters STFU.
Their constant refrain (many might call it whining, bleating, etc.) has been, "Don't just come on FR and trash my candidate, how about providing WHY you want your candidate...blah blah blah).
That refrain is ALMOST as ridiculous and without merit as their favorite, "All of you are just ONE issue voters, blah blah blah).
We TRUE CONSERVAIVES have mentioned WHY we are FOR Duncan Hunter and others like him on MANY occassions, and we have listed CONSERVATIVE ISSUE after CONSERVATIVE ISSUE that our candidate MUST support, including RIGHT-TO-LIFE and 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS (which, even if these were the ONLY two issues mentioned, they are EXTREMEMY important to us, and are more than ONE issue)
Just say NO to any and all RINOs.
Don't forget the "Keating Five".
Like "Speaking truth to Pwer" it also tells you they have no genuine ideas about any real problems. Pelosi has ideas- all bad, but she has them. Trust me, she knows what she wants to do.
The Gang of 14 should NOT be forgotten either - again McCain singlehandedly radicalizes our judicial process and screws the Constitution.
I seriously doubt that I could vote for him under ANY circumstance.
I agree 100%.
It all goes back to VOTE NO if it's a riNO on the ticket.
BINGO!
Well, that completely depends on one's assessment of what the political landscape will be in late 2008. If one concludes that there are no social conservative candidates who can win in the general, then any responsible conservative has to look at who can when and then choose which of those is the best on the issues. But I can certainly understand that there is a difference of opinion right now on who is and isn't electable in the general.
I fail to see how Rudy's gun-control policies are an example of how government exists to keep people safe in their homes.
And government exists to reinforce and protect the RIGHTS of its citizens. Never forget that.
Concerning McCain and CFR: Making mistake is very different than deliberately commtting a wrong.
McCain has a tremendous amount of personal baggage as well!
LOL. There is a good side to a Demonrat victory!! And that would very likely be the outcome of a Hillary presidency- she'd kill off Demonrats.
Lincoln was not a member of the House of Representatives, he was a FORMER member of the House as well as a failed candidate for United States Senator.
Thanks for the ping. Nothing like popcorn in the morning!
Yeah, that's worked out great with Cheney, who SHOULD be our CONSERVATIVE president, not being able to keep Bush's "compassionate", RINO-like tendencies in check.
Our placation is IMPOSSIBLE if there is a RINO at the top of the heap.
Yes, but he was indeed in the lower house, wasn't he?
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.