Posted on 03/07/2007 4:32:54 AM PST by Verax
Politics is the 'art of the compromise', you haven't figured that out yet.
I have figured that out. You seem to think that compromise means total surrender. People won't compromise with someone that they know will cave as soon as negotiations begin.
Makes sense.
Well, while you try and find a Reagan-type candidate to support I will be supporting the candidade that can beat Hilldabeast. Best of luck.
The president is not going to be able to grab your guns, and especially not if you elect a republican Congress. I don't know what brain disconnect would possess conservatives to elect a left wing democrat president and Congress. And that is what they started last election, that is what they will accomplish next election.
So you really don't care WHO wins as long as it's a Republican. Is that your position?
"I say it will be your fault for putting forth a candidate who we can't vote for, who's right? -- therefore it is a poor argument on your part."
Except that I'm not "putting forth a candidate." I'm voting for the person who I think has the optimal combination of right ideas and electability. Very seldom in our history have those two characteristics come together into one candidate. I can only think of Reagan and possibly Bush.
I guess the answer to your question boils down to how much difference one sees between the Dem and GOP candidate. Some claim here that they see little or no difference. But what I've tried to argue that I see far less difference between what America would look like under Reagan and under Giuliani than the gap I see between Reagan and H. Clinton.
yeh yeh yeh!!! Hunter(a good guy) or Ron Paul or a Newt have as much chance winning a general election as I do. I always felt I had the luxury to be a purist and even abstain from voting if a candidate didn't meet my criteria. Watching the new congress of barely 2 months has snapped me into reality. We can ill afford to put our national security into the hands of a democrat or a fortress America type. I'll even hold my nose and vote for McCain who I viscerally dislike because I fear a dem. If Rudy's polls hold up I'll vote for him because he's good on the most pressing issues of our time, those being homeland security winning the wot crime and taxes.
Thanks for posting this. Its 100 percent correct.
The Repubs were a minority party UNTIL the social conservaties came along in 1980 and made them a majority party.
Nominate Gulliani and Joe Sixpack - who votes Repub because of social issues - will stay home or vote Democrat.
The internet represents a skewed reality. Its full of articulate Social liberals/Economic Conservatives. These voters represent probably 5% of the voting population. The other group Social Conservatives/Economic Liberals represent probably 15-20% of the population.
We need to go hunting where the ducks are. Go the Dole/Ford/Bush'92 route and we are doomed to defeat in 2008.
To misquote Lincoln: God must love Reagan Democrats because he made so many of them.
Great column, CBB. I found the attacks on you for daring to write this objective analysis to be hilarious.
This column reminds me of this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939395/posts
That analysis turned out to be deadly accurate.
Rudy is quite simply the only popular Republican in the country, the only candidate with strong support in every region, the only candidate who appeals to members of both parties and independents, and the one with the most name recognition (except for Bill's WINO).
In addition, Republican candidates who lead early get the nomination -- unlike on the 'rat side. Unless Rudy screws it up, which I don't expect, he'll get the nomination.
Rudy also is helped by the fact that the other three main candidates have obvious flaws, and the rest are a bunch of mini-mees. Particularly amusing are the members of the "Jaeger Battalion" -- who are no doubt passionate in their support but lack the numbers to have a realistic shot at victory.
I see the SC Primary as key. Rudy has a strong organization down there, and his selection to speak to graduates of The Citadel is IMHO hugh and series! That indicated support from the movers and shakers of the Palmetto State. If Rudy wins SC, I don't see how anyone could stop him from the nomination.
If it is Rudy v. Hillary that will be the biggest NY battle since Ali-Frazier I.
oops, replied to the wrong thread!
Ok, I'm convinced. I will stay home and elect a left wing liberal traitor democrat. Not.
"Ok, I'm convinced. I will stay home and elect a left wing liberal traitor democrat. Not."
Ah, the "logic" of a rudy supporter.
How about: Support someone other than a pro-war liberal for the GOP nomination and THEN vote for that person?
..it would be a real test of the adage "we do not beat them by being like them".
Giving the country a clear choice rather than 1 or 2 degrees of difference, IMO, will give the GOP a better chance at victory in the general.
But we are WAY ahead of things here--the mayor has a monumental task of convincing the Religious Right, Gun Owners etc that he is the guy...
In the general election I will vote for any of the various republican nominees. There is only one possible exception that comes to mind - Chuck Hagel. But I don't believe he has a remote chance of getting nominated.
I think with Giuliani there will be a problem with this number. The "no matter what" is a little different this time around because in the past the "no matter what" that you ended up voting for was at least a conservative, even if the person wasn't your first choice among the conservative candidates.
In the past we have never had a Republican nominee that was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control and pro-amnesty all wrapped up in one. I think this is a completely different ball game.
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.