Posted on 10/07/2007 7:46:22 AM PDT by Jagman
What’s at stake…
As we sit here debating Rudy’s abortion stance or Ron Paul’s ideas, here’s a little thought exercise that should clarify what’s a stake for all of us in the upcoming election. Analysts often pursue a worst-case scenario in order to outline the scope of an issue. Here’s my version of such a scenario for 2008:
1. Hillary! wins the Whitehouse.
2. Due to the retirement of key Republican Senators in states with a heavy Democrat base (sorry, I refuse to call them blue states), as well as incremental wins elsewhere, the Democrats not only pick up Senate seats, but win a filibuster-proof majority.
3. The Democrats continue to pick up seats in the House.
Now, here’s the fun part: With total governmental control, what do you think the Democrats will do? Unlike the Republican when they were in power, the Democrats do not worry about imposing their ideas on the country at large. Here are several random, worst-case notions, and I’m sure you can add to the list:
1. Pull out of Iraq, leaving in the wake the same magnitude of damage they visited on South Vietnam in the 1970s. Also, cancel star wars research, and cut military budgets across the board.
2. Raise taxes, and put in place new taxes! Everything from a hefty carbon tax for global warming to new entitlements for everyone except those actually paying for everything.
3. Open the borders! Make America a “Sanctuary Nation” for anyone and everyone who wants to enter the country.
4. Hillary! healthcare: socialized medicine becomes a reality.
5. Settle scores. With everyone from W to Rumsfeld to maybe even you and me, if we fall into their sights.
6. Impose the Fairness Doctrine! No more Rush, Laura, etc. – and perhaps no more Fox News.
7. Stack the court system! From all-democrat attorney generals to packing the Supreme Court (remember, with a filibuster-proof majority, the Dems in the Senate could appoint Barbra Streisand as Chief Justice and get her through) the justice system will abandon original intent faster than Justice Souter abandoned his principles.
8. Abortion on Demand! Just as Planned Parenthood set up an abortion factory in Aurora, Illinois, one will be coming to your town, too.
9. Gay marriage becomes a federally mandated reality.
10. Repeal the Second Amendment.
11. Etc.
Certainly, the above would be the worst case scenario, and there’s no way they could accomplish all of these without feeling the sting of a voter rebuke in two years, but what if they could accomplish just half of these goals, or a quarter of them, or maybe even one or two?
What were Bobby Knight’s words?
“If it’s inevitable, relax and enjoy it.”
Unfortunately, followers of the Grand Ayatollah Dobson won’t support Rudy if he runs against Hitlery Klinton.
We do not get many candidates of good quality for President. Why should we? Does anyone with half a brain and a working moral compass want that miserable job?
As always, we have to vote for the lesser evil and hold our noses. If "principled Conservatives" want to live under that horror they will get what they deserve.
If someone of conscience cannot vote FOR a Republican candidate, then let them vote AGAINST pure evil.
Free Republic Opinion Poll: (9/24) If the Republican Presidential Primary were held today, and the following candidates were listed on your ballot, which one would you choose?
Composite Opinion
Fred Thompson 47.6% 3,258
Duncan Hunter 24.7% 1,691
Mitt Romney 12.8% 879
Tom Tancredo 7.6% 522
Mike Huckabee 7.2% 496
Totals 99.9% 6,846
OK let’s go with Fred!
I agree. Yet it seems to me that somehow Rudy has become the savior of the Rep party (to some). I don't get it.
Please do not sully this thread with common sense or thoughtful insight. It makes the Political FReepercides nervous as they must at least acknowledge that what they’re threatening will indeed be on their collective conscience when we all are forced to pay the price they chose. Those aren’t Indians on the horizon, Custer Republicans, those are Socialists. Your scalp is the least prize they covet.
Same thing that rudy pushed in New york. LOL,
Not drinking your brand of cool-aide.
Since coming of age to vote, I have never sat out a national election..ever. Additonally, I have never, ever knowingly voted for a supporter of abortion.
I'm not going to fall for this notion that the sky will fall if Rudy isn't the Republican nom.
I like Fred Thompson. If Rudy gets the nomination, I will get up on Election Day 2008 at 5am to go cast my vote for Rudy.
Hillary Clinton is worse than liberal. She is a Communist. So my choice is clear, I will vote Republican in the general.
Yes, I agree - it’s Fred!
I agree! What's difficult for me is the thought that it may come down to a choice between Rudy and Hillary. The idea of that choice makes me ill and I pray I never have to make it!
1) Mitt Romney - Mormon, and combination of flip flopping on social issues.
2) Rudy - Social issues
3) Fred - so far (debate performance may change this perception) his uninspiring campaign presence, and although many don't want to talk about it, his health.
It is our responsibility to figure our how all of these things will play out in the general election.
For Mitt, I see his issues causing most problems in the evangelical south. Will it be enough to actually lose any southern states is the question. Will the percentage that refuse to vote for him in those states be absorbed by the otherwise large leads that President Bush had in those states in 2004? On the other hand does his "polished politician" persona win any new states, or even keep the marginal ones (such as Ohio).
For Rudy - these problems have been debated over and over again so there is no need to go into those again. We know, according to recent polls, that he loses up to 27% of the social conservative vote. But where are those votes? As with Mitt, does he lose them in any one place, or is it mainly the south that we can afford to lose a few points. For example, in 2004 President Bush won Georgia by 16.5%, obviously if all the 27% vote in that one state we would lose the electoral votes, but if instead only 10% of those people in Georgia refuse to vote for him, he would still win by 6.5% (I realize my math is not correct - I am just making the point). And can Rudy offset those numbers by winning some moderates in States like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, etc.
For Fred, I don't think his problems offset much if any in the primary elections. I think that most of his hard core supporters know his health issues, and are not bothered by his laid back persona, but let's move to the general election like I have with the others. Will the general public look at his health as a liability? Does the general public even know about his cancer? Will his campaign style woo over new voters? Can he hold on to all of the states that President Bush won in 2004.
Now that I have laid out some of the liabilities of all of the major candidates, we must decide which liabilities are worth the risk of going head to head with Hillary. We must also decide if our top priority is really to keep her out of the White House (which in my case it is)
But after that we have to go after the 'rat nominee, who will almost certainly be her Thighness, with hammer and tongs. Making the transition, especially if the nominee is your 3rd or 4th, or "No Way Jose" choice, is difficult, but absolutely required to prevent a disaster.
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.