Posted on 01/21/2008 5:48:14 AM PST by cotton1706
Bush won AK with 54.3%; Missouri with 53.3%; Virginia with 53.7%; and Fl with 52.1%.
Wow we have a lefty politician from MA who changes his opinion with the political winds and its *McCain* who reminds you of kerry...
LOL
Do as you wish but any ticket with Mitt will die nationally..
Hell I could up and vote for Trudy before willard at least he is honest about his social issue standings..
Willard: Pro Abort, Anti Gun, Pro Illegal ... that is until its time for a national election..
Which puts them within range for the Democrats. Those margins are not so large that they cannot be reversed, particularly when considering that an imcumbent President was running. For example, Virginia which has had dramatic growth in the D.C. bedroom communities. Northern Virginia has been trending more and more toward the Democrats since the last Presidential election. The national Republican Party is worried about Virginia both in the Senate race and the Presidential race. A higher than normal turnout among those who vote overwhelming Democrat and a lower than normal turnout among the traditional Republican voting blocs could spell doom.
The same troubling trends are also present in the other states listed, perhaps more so with Missouri and Florida, less so with Arkansas. Any state where the winner wins in low 50's is an electoral target for the other side in the next election cycle.
Jane, I owe you an apology (will also apologize on other thread)! As my dear FRiend Fox pointed out, I went all Rambo on you, when I actually AGREE with you on the Romney vs McCain argument. I misread your post as saying McCain is going to win Florida and then become the Rebuplican candidate for President. I gave you a snippy response, for which I apolgize! Actually I’m hoping you’re right and Mitt Does win Florida and go on to be the candidate. Promise to try to get more sleep, and read posts correctly in the future!! ;>)
Thanks, Fox, for pointing out that Jane was friend, not foe!! ;>)
Not to worry. He'll switch back afterwards.
I have a feeling that McCain will choose Huckabee as his Veep pick. It’s just gut instinct, nothing more.
But you may find this interesting. DeLay says he’d consider sitting it out if McCain got the nom........
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957329/posts
Considering that Pensacola is one of the bigger cities in the Panhandle and is the home of so much Naval aviation, McCain might have an advantage in that area. I wish he didn't, but I'm afraid that he will.
Bill
My personal preference is Fred.
BUT anyone of the GOP is preferable to Hillary!
(Yes even Huckster and Paul!)
(Hillary plus a compliant democrat Congress (with a even larger democrat majority!)is to horrible to contemplate! The GOP will to too shell shocked to anything other then suck their thumbs and make gurgling noises!)
Look if we want to collectively blame anyone for the fix we seem to be in I suggest we all look in the mirror!
We are the electorate that created this mess!
Looking at the candidates, as far as conservative principles, electability etc & in no particular order of preference.
Hunter probably the best fit for my conservative principles but supporting him would violate my initial “rule-of-thumb” on electability. My electability “rule-of-thumb” is where I look at a candidate and ask, ‘Can he win a state-wide election in his home state?’. The answer with Hunter is ‘no way!’, and thats a recurring problem with presidential candidates coming from the House. Usually they are popular in only one particular part of the state (Their district!)
Paul, in some sense satisfies my libertarian impulses but then there is his “moveon.org” notions about national security. (If the stories about his newsletter are correct he may some other disturbing notions!) Also he fails the “rule-of-thumb” test! Hillary, Obama or Paul, at least he would let me be armed to shoot the 'terrorists' who would no longer be trying to kill us if we just sang kum-ba-ya!
Guiliani, satisfies my “rule-of-thumb” test. (Which I would wish he would actually do rather then run for president!) Has the right stance on WOT in fact might actually prosecute the war with more vigor! I also believe that the war is the seminal issue for our nation right now. His weaknesses are obvious, way to the left of me on social issues. Also his illegal immigration stance is all over the place, I think the illegal situation is so bad that we have reached a point where only a “strong approach” can get the situation under any sort of control. His economic views are pretty much “free market” and similar to mine. (At least I have heard or read nothing to the contrary!) I could unhappily vote for Guiliani.
Huckabee, one governor from Arkansas is enough in my lifetime. Another economically illiterate politician, socialism GOP-style will work no better the normal democrap socialism. At least democraps are the socialist party so I expect it from them. His foreign policy views are comical until you realize he is serious. He is better then Hillary or Obama. Not a ringing endorsement! McCain. Well he supposedly has a 85% rating by ACU on conservative issues. If he hadn't sponsored McCain-Feingold (Don't any of these clowns read the Consitution!) & been a major supporter of the last illegal immigration bill, I would gag less when I consider pulling the lever for him. He is right on the WOT, of course he does it in manner that is smarmy & self-centered. Team player are not words in vocabulary, unless team player means I am the team captain & you do as I say! Again he is better then Hillary or Obama. Again not a ringing endorsement! Romney, is probably the most talented of all the candiates GOP Deomcrap, Vegetarian party etc, anywhere! He has actually made a payroll without using the force of law to reach deeper into another individual's pocket! As far as being a conservative well he could be more so, but was probably as conservative as is possible in the 'Land-o-Kennedy'! He is right on the WOT, in the ball-park on illegal immigration. What I have heard on the debates & read makes him 'acceptable'.(Ok could he be lying well yes, so could Ron Paul. Paul might secretively want to imitate Napoleon for all I know.) Fred Thompson, well he is just better ! He fits my personal views much closer then the others. So for me, and this is an exponetial decay in my preference! Fred Romney McCain & Guiliani (Tie) My number 3 depends who of the two has annoyed me recently Huckabee (Gag!) Paul (double double gag!)
McCain has a pro-life record, but I think he has indicated he would be open to appointing “qualified” judges with a range of views and so might be a less effective advocate of the pro-life position than any of the other Republicans (even pro-choice Rudy has consistently expressed his support for strict constructionist judges, though I doubt his sincerity).
Who are you FOR in the primary?
Not Romney.
I already know who you are against.
Who are you FOR in the primary?
Not Romney.
I actually looked as far back as TR and one could make a case that it still hold back that far!
McStain has not been winning GOP voters. All his victories have been the result of mischief by “demo-pendents” in open primaries.
Florida will be the death of the McStain candidacy.
Elmer Gantrabee is toast too.
Ironic, as I share your attitude toward Mitt-worshipping sell-outs.
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.