If there's no FRed and no Hunter and we're left with the four headless RINOs, then what?

January 10, 2008 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

The question was posed to me last night, if the only two conservatives in the race were to drop out, leaving the hapless RINOs Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee and McCain to ward off the Evil Witch of the East then, Jim, what do we do?

Well, I think four issues that most of us conservatives will agree on that are at the top or near the top of our priority lists are National Defense, Border Security, Guns and Life should be considered. We can argue all day long on whether or not these guys are constitutionally minded, small government fiscal conservatives, and I don't believe any of them are, but we'll leave that for another day. Let's concentrate on National Defense, Border Security, Guns and Life.

Well, I can see right off that that rules out Rudy, the draft dodging, gun grabbing, sanctuary city abortionist. At least the other three claim to be pro-life, although Romney has been a pro-choice abortionist for all of his elected history until he decided to run for president. I think Romney's pro choice, big government nanny state (RomneyCare) record gives him two big black eyes and should knock him out of any further consideration. That leaves Huckabee and McCain.

Now, all four of these guys are terrible on border security even though they're all claiming now to be border hawks. McCain led the charge for amnesty and the rest fell in line like dutiful RINO troopers. Can't really make a distinction among these guys on the border issue. All fail, though I think most conservatives would rank McCain at or near the bottom.

Guns. Rudy's definitely out. McCain's out. Romney's not much better. Guess Huckabee the big duck hunter outshoots the others in this category.

Rudy fails in all categories, McCain and Romney fail on guns, and all fail on borders. So I guess Huckabee has more to offer over the others at this point as he is at least pro-life and pro-gun.

Now comes national defense. Sorry, but I can't see the draft dodging, gun grabbing, gay loving, cross-dressing, illegal alien pandering abortion activist Rudy Giuliani as a very appealing or effective guy to head up our military, even if he did make some rousing anti-terrorist speeches on 9/11. The "gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military" Romney (no military or national security experience that I know of) doesn't give me goosebumps either.

So, again, we're down to Huckabee and McCain. Now you all know that I like Huckabee as he is a likable fellow, and I hate McCain, but wait. If the whole shebang is going to be decided on which of the still standing Republican wannabes should defend America from the terrorists and the surrendering Democrats, I think I'll have to go with McCain over Huckabee. At least McCain served in the military and has a whole lot more military and national security experience while serving on various committees in the senate than does Huckabee. Huckabee has none. And I doubt Huckabee can defeat Hillary. But then, McCain probably won't either, so guess that leaves plan B. Squat down, tuck your head down between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.

Here's praying that the only two all around consistently reliable conservatives hang in there and one of them gets the nod.

Go Hunter!! Go, FRed, GO!!

[Shryke]

Well spoken.

[Just mythoughts]

Bible believing? One must know what the Bible says, and the preacher class have NEVER done very well in that area even back to the days of Moses and Aaron. Nothing new under the sun. Oh and wearing the symbol WWJD is not Biblical.

[sneakers]

bttt

[avacado]

Thanks!

[RetiredArmy]

Very, very simple. We lose and we lose big. If America is going to vote for a liberal, then they will chose the Liberal Experts of all time, the Marxist Dimocrat party. The RINOcrat party is simply a disgrace to us. They are weak, with a yellow spine. They cannot stand up to the Marxists. They run and hide. They only want to protect their little piece of earth, protect their pay check, stay in office. They are not my party any more. They left me when they turned left at the intersection of Bill Klinton and Jorge W. Bush boulevards.

[RetiredArmy]

Maybe make our last stand in Montana

Might wanna check those elected in Montana lately and who is moving there. Montana is sliding left. They have a very lefty senator.

[Badeye]

If nothing else, Thompson put off answering the question for at least another week, perhaps longer depending on how he fairs in the SC primary.

I’m eagerly awaiting polling data - with a skeptical eye due to the NH errors - post debate. Lets see if Thompson ‘connected’ in a big way as a result.

Lets also see if Huckabee’s ‘momentum’ didn’t take a big hit as a result of Thompson’s performance.

Game on.

[Manic_Episode]

"WWJD is not Biblical"

======================

Amazingly correct.

Do unto others as we would have them do unto us is the standard Jesus gave us, so the correct question in all situations is actually "How would I want to be treated"?

[processing please hold]

SONNY? hahahahahahaha

Yeah, SONNY (nic) let that be a lesson to you. lolololololol Ya gotta love it, nic. ;)

[processing please hold]

Howdy, count. Keep yer powder dry. lol

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"And the democrats are experienced in playing these games. The want a liberal RINO so that Hillery can beat them. They do not want a conservative, and stack the deck (or votes if you prefer) against anyone who is."

Actually, I think it's the other way around - the Democrats would prefer to run against the most conservative possible Republican (in FR terms) as their polling tells that that the more "moderate" the Republican, the worse a Democrat runs against them, and this is true for all three Democratic front runners, someone like Duncan Hunter is the Democrats' dream opponent, and John McCain is their nightmare:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

I know his is contrary to the opinion of most posters here, but that's what the polls are telling Democratic strategists, and they are going to go with the polls.

[KC_Conspirator]

Well, thats about the right assessement. If Fred does not win, then we are stuck with a bunch of guys that are moderate Republicans, which does not excite us here. Its not what I want, but its not the end of the world.

Senator Klinton is totally beatable by about 3-4 of those guys. Her negatives are going to be a big factor.

[Polybius]

At any rate, you have my promise here: I will be voting REPUBLICAN this November, even if the dude does not have an (R) after his name. Tired of voting for Democrats in either party!!

Note that, in Post 485, I did not even mention "Republican" or "Democrat". Such labels are irrelevant as political party characteristics change from election to election, especially in these times when Oprah-influenced voters and not political bosses in smoke-filled rooms make the choice on who will be the standard bearer.

I look at candidates the way Jim did in this "then what?" thread: Issue by issue and candidate by candidate.

My primary issue is not losing the war through Commander-in-Chief surrender. The stakes in the Persian Gulf are of the highest magnitude. Imagine the future of America with 70% of the World's known oil reserves having been abandoned to the military control of fanatical Iranian Islamists with dreams of martyrdom who are actively seeking nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

These are not strategic stakes that you can be f***ing with.

Putting a Commander-in-Chief in the White House who will not allow that to happen will be my Number One priority.

I will NOT be throwing away my vote in protest in an act equivalent to putting "Ronald Reagan" as a 2008 write-in vote. That is the ultimate in political narcissism. I WILL cast my vote for a VIABLE candidate so that I can at least put some measure of sanity into the final choice.

If, by some national Republican psychosis, Ron Paul is the Republican candidate for President, I WILL be voting for Hillary in November since at least I know that Hillary is not stupid enough to think that isolationism will magically protect Washington, DC and New York City from nuclear tipped Islamist ICBM's.

As far as "Right to Life", the irony is that voting for a liberal Bible-thumping Baptist preacher that uses religion as a campaign tool will galvanize the 50% of the U.S. electorate that almost put Al Gore in the White House and put the hard-core liberal in the White House instead of the Not Pure Enough judicial conservative who would put "original intent" Justices on the Supreme Court who could overturn Roe v. Wade and leave things such as abortion under State control as the Tenth Amendment intended things not mentioned in the Constitution to be. With with a few more Ruth Ginsburg clones on the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade will remain the law of the land for decades to come.

[Paraclete]

What you see on FR is a microcosm of the GOP, although more weighted to libertarianism. That’s why the GOP is in a heap of trouble.

Make no mistake, the Reagan coalition is in deep recess if not over. For most folks around here it is just romanticism. Reagan would be very unwelcome on FR, the home of Curmudgeon Conservatism.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[LucyJo]

The way to avoid voting for G-R-M is to try to prevent them from becoming the nominee, of course. Fred Thompson is the most viable hope we have for a conservative candidate. But, the scenario offered here was...if that had already been tried and failed, and a RINO is all we had left on the R ticket, then what?

Your options have already been limited by the time you've reached that point, and you have a choice to make between a RINO as the R nominee, and the Marxist D nominee. I'm saying that I'll vote for the R nominee before I'll sit at home, or vote for the Marxist D. I may not have much influence with the R, but the chances of influencing the actions of a RINO are better than the zero chance we have of doing the same with a D.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the scenario offered, if so, I apologize.

[bushfamfan]

I would vote for any of them with the exception of Ron Paul. And when the ‘electable’ candidate doesn’t win I will then remind those who said a certain candidate was ‘unelectable’ and then I am all for Duncan Hunter leading a new party.

[bushfamfan]

And I don’t understand the harshness towards Romney if FRed can change.

[longtermmemmory]

-no campaign contributions to candidates
-no coat tails for the senate or house of representatives
-no volunteers for candidates

at that point it would be darn close to game over.

[ZULU]

“Rudy fails in all categories, McCain and Romney fail on guns, and all fail on borders. So I guess Huckabee has more to offer over the others at this point as he is at least pro-life and pro-gun.”

Good analysis. Makes sense to me.

If we can’t have Thompson, at least Huckabee is solid on the other issues. With the Border, a lot depends on popular pressure and public opinion. WHoever gets elected CAN be pressured to come over to our side, even if its through COngress. A LOT of Dems and independent voters are anti-illegal aliens.