Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: streetpreacher
"That wasn’t a presidential race."

Thanks for clearing that up. So voting for liberals is ok, unless they run for president. Got it.

73 posted on 04/21/2007 7:01:15 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: Godebert

Of course not. I didn’t support Arnold. But like you, I don’t reside in California and had no say in the matter. I’m just saying that the stakes weren’t nearly as high.

And Arnold did at least posture himself as a “fiscal” conservative with no previous record to prove he was lying.

Rudy doesn’t have the same luxury.


115 posted on 04/21/2007 7:13:24 PM PDT by streetpreacher (What if you're wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: Godebert

Don’t get overly sanctimonious. Presidents nominate justices to the Supreme Court. THAT is where the conservatism counts more than any other place.

While libs give us Ginsberg and Breyer, psuedo-libs give us Stephens and Souter. There really isn’t that much difference between the four.


116 posted on 04/21/2007 7:13:32 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: Godebert

California is much better off with Arnold than they would have been with a democrat.

However, not sure if conservatism is better off or not.

But our country is nothing like California, and we don’t have to consider the defeatism of picking a liberal for president.


205 posted on 04/21/2007 7:35:30 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson