[Ultra Sonic 007]

Don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for someone who's actually GOOD for America.

[only1percent]

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.

[pookie18]

Though Hunter's probably my top choice at this time, I'm going to definitely be voting for the Republican nominee in the general election. You may want to see a repeat of losing the house & senate in '06, but I don't. Furthermore, if Rudy's the nominee, he favors judges like Scalia, Alito & Roberts, but even if he didn't...Hillary's far worse in every way.

[lentulusgracchus]

This is a very good thread, by the way, and very useful to discuss right now. Thanx for putting it up. Appreciate it.

[Diddle E. Squat]

War inevitably involves the death of innocents, no war has been fought where one side was able to totally avoid collateral damage and death.

By your definition, we should never compromise our Judeo-Christian beliefs and go to war. Killing an innocent is about the greatest sin one can commit, so how can we rationalize war as ok since it is at best only the 'lesser of evils'?

Because failure to stop the greater evil will result in far, far more death and bloodshed.

When the family hid Ann Frank they broke the law, failed to 'Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's", and repeatedly lied. The bible clearly says not to lie. Was the family wrong to commit the 'lesser of evils'?

So clearly, there are times when choosing the 'lesser of evils' is the only moral and right choice to make. And the invoking of that phrase is misleading and extremely short-sighted and foolish.

Self-righteousness cannot absolve oneself of responsibilities (see Pontius Pilate...)

[Doogle]

I'm between Giuliani and Tancredo. Tancredo because of his stand on immigration (read the link on my profile about immigration and it's importance). And Rudy, because I saw what he could do with a cess pool (NYC) after years of liberal influence. He was reelected even though a republican,in the very middle of liberalism, because of his strong stance on crime,brought the city's budget within reason,(consider NYC is very much like a small country as far as governing)and I truly believe he has what it takes as far as "spending". The nickname America's Mayor was because of his response to 9/11....do consider he had in place before.... all the good people,good planning, and, that take control ability to overcome enormous conditions at the very end of his administration. He used to get torn apart in the liberal press (NYT etc) daily because he was too mean..*grins*, but he got the job done. I'll go by what I've seen done, not by what people say....... (just my opinion...ok donning flame retardant suit) Doogle

[PGalt]

Well placed vanity and interesting/informative comments. Thanks.

[HankReardon]

Let me put this discussion in simply terms;

A Republican President is more likely to ensure that the enemy and his ability to wage war continues to be destroyed, somewhere other than the USA.

A Democratic President will end the killing of terrorists. Ceasefires are just a time for the enemy to reload as lonf as they are alive.

A Democratic President will seal the fate of New York City and hundreds of thousands of civilians who will die at the hand of terrorists that should be being killed themselves.

Okay, We lose NYC or we elect a Republican President who even though he has some personal liberal social views but will nominate strict constitutionally originists judges.

Now go vote!

[poinq]

What is Jeb Bush's real first name?

[B Knotts]

Agreed.

I do believe that one can take "electability" into account, but...it must not be considered more important than principle, otherwise you end up losing everything you were trying to achieve in the first place.

[ViLaLuz]

I'm done "holding my nose" to vote for the lesser of two evils. This is why globalist elites keep getting voted into office. If I don't see any honorable R candidates next time around, I will vote for a third party candidate.

[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.

[Kaslin]

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

[JonH]

How about vote for anyone except Hillary...

[F.J. Mitchell]

Dittos.

[JCEccles]

Romney has flip-flopped on positions many times,

No he hasn't. This is a silly assertion without any evidence whatsoever to support it.

He started out with moderately centrist positions on some issues and moved right.

Just like Reagan.

No flip. No flop. Just strong rightward movement.

What's wrong with that?

[poindexter]

It's pretty simple, really. In any election, vote for the best candidate in the race. In the primaries, that means voting for the candidate you agree with 90+% of the time. Work hard, donate, try your best to get your perfect candidate to win the primaries.

In the general election, if your perfect candidate is there, great! You did a good job and are in an enviable position. But if your candidate didn't make it, vote for the best candidate in the race! That may mean choosing between the candidate you agree with 60% of the time and the one you agree with 10% of the time.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Shooter 2.5]

First all, the three leaders are there only because the leftist media wants them to be there. They will ignore the true conservatives because it fits their agenda. It's a win-win to elect a socialist no matter what party they belong to.

Before the primaries, work for a true conservative who best fits your ideals. Donate money, work for them and tell your friends. We still have a little less than two years to elect someone who can save this country.

[Ol' Sparky]

Anything less than a conservative Republican Presidential nominee isn't acceptable.

Better four years of Hillary than eight years of a RINO and/or another Democratic. But, it won't have to come to that if conservatives rally around a true conservative candidate.

McCain and Giuliani were being forced on us in the same way that Obama is being forced on the nation. Conservatives need to realize the popularity of both is an illusion presented by the drive-by media.

[Lancey Howard]

I agree, there's a lot of time left for somebody like Fred Thompson to step up.
Nobody could say he's not a "Law and Order" candidate.