Very well said, the republican establishment and their cronies will try to tell us that the only important thing is to beat hillery. Then try to scare us into believing that we have to pander to the left in order to win and in so doing electing somebody who is just as bad as her.
Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo(sp?), Fred Thompson, and Newt are our best hopes for a candidate that will fire up the conservative base and win a general election.
I just cant see supporting a candidate that has demonstrated that he is pro-gay, pro-abort, anti-gun dresses in drag and has fooled around on not one but 2 wives and done so blatantly with no regard for the institution of marriage or to the office that he was elected to. If he did winhe would be a Republican Bill Clinton just waiting to happen.
We lost the last election because we didn't come out strong on borders and illegal immigration, but we still had the traditional values voters and pro life and pro 2nd amendment people on our side and just barley lost in a lot of places because our base wasn't motivated. So what so now the establishment people are trying to give us some one who says he is strong on borders and the WOT, well whoopee! He is essentially a hillery with different genitals and has said as much himself, so we will pick him and lose all the pro lifers, 2nd amendment and values voters will stay home and we will lose by a huge margin and leave the democrats in complete power.
That's the Rove theory.
I think he's dead wrong. I think that, except for the unrepeatable particular circumstance of November 2004, that a fired-up conservative base loses 9 times out of 10.
The "fired up base" around here thinks they are 65% of the population when they are 30% at most, and they show no concept of how to get the 21% of non-fired up, non-base voters they need to win.