What's also really elementary, is that this nation does NOT have a populace that is more CONSERVATIVE than LIBERAL. In order to win an election, a candidate must therefore attract the votes of a majority of the populace, so that the electoral college votes, from each state, give a sure and certain win to one specific candidate. If that doesn't happen, then nobody's vote counts, since the election is then thrown into the pit of elected officials in D.C.!
And since the word "conservative" has taken on a different meaning, here, than it's usual meaning ( outside of the MSM, that is ), therein lies a problem for communication.
If "many" fringe parties, with supposed "conservative" candidates spring up, as you have mused, who then, do you imagine those candidates will be? Any names come to mind? I would be very interested to know whom you imagine would come to the fore.
You're shouting again. It's really rude.
But, completely by accident I'm sure, you've hit on the root of the problem. The Republican Party is in danger once again of being taken over by Northeastern liberals who claim that they aren't Northeastern liberals.
What this website and our gracious host are trying to do is to see that the Republican Party is in fact the home of modern day conservatism.
You however are working at cross purposes to the stated goals of this forum.
Promoting Dame Guliani as the Republican Party nominee does nothing to promote smaller government, respect for private property rights, defending the unborn, returning the Federal government to its proper Constitutional role, defend the 2nd Amendment, or any of the other things this website is dedicated to.
In short you're kind of the t*** in the punchbowl.
You're promoting someone who is diametrically opposed to the stated goals of this forum.
All the while you're trying to tell us it's for our own good. Then you get all shocked and suprised when most of the forum disagrees with you and makes no secret of their contempt for yet another Northeastern liberal attempting to pass himself (or herself as the case may be) as something they most obviously are not.
Get this through your head:
We don't give a rats ass if Dame Guliani is 'electable'. Bill Clinton was 'electable'.
We don't want 'electable'. We want Conservative.
Now if you can't deal with that maybe you should find another group of people to annoy because quite frankly I'm getting more than just a bit tired of your foolishness.
You're obviously not in agreement with the stated goals of Free Republic. You make that more clear with every single one of your posts.
Perhaps you should find another forum more to your liking and one which more closely reflects your liberal political philosophy.
I'm pretty sure the Log Cabin Republicans have a small discussion forum. No doubt you'll liven things up there quite a bit.
L