I mostly agree with you there, but I would like to add that more conservatives need to show out in primaries for their candidate. Let my give you an example, calcowgirl, in my state's primary(SC) only 1 in 4 Republicans voted. Let's just assume that Fred Thompson was the conservatives' choice in the primary. Ok, Fred got 17%, I think McLame got like 25%. So if a little over twice as many Fred supporters would have actually showed up(and I know they were out there), McLame would have lost to the conservatives' choice. Couple that with the fact that the Democrats had an 80% turnout; now you see where I'm coming from.
Your writting style reminds me of Ann Coulter's, btw. That's a good thing. ;)
Absolutely no disagreement there!
Let my give you an example, calcowgirl, in my state's primary(SC) only 1 in 4 Republicans voted. Let's just assume that Fred Thompson was the conservatives' choice in the primary. Ok, Fred got 17%, I think McLame got like 25%. So if a little over twice as many Fred supporters would have actually showed up(and I know they were out there), McLame would have lost to the conservatives' choice. Couple that with the fact that the Democrats had an 80% turnout; now you see where I'm coming from.
Yep. But I'm convinced much of that was by design. IMO, the RNC ins controlled by a group that is much more moderate than the general electorate. They are the ones that gave McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger starring roles at the 2004 Convention and have helped develop their resumes for years. They had several horses in this race and were going to make sure that one of them rose to the top. Whether it was pumping up Rudy or beating down Hunter, all of it was designed to make sure one of the more moderate candidates rose to the top (even if it happened in almost silence... as it did with McCain). Rudy dropped out at the exact right time to help McCain. A three-dimensional chess game, almost.
I know it's hard for folks to believe that there is something better than an (R) winning. A decade ago, I would have been arguing with the likes of me. But most recently in California, we have lived it up-close-and-personal with Schwarzenegger. His policies are much like McCain's. He has been able to pass legislation with almost unanimous Democrat support and only the minimum number of Republicans necessary to get a majority. Being the titular head of the State Party, he can wield much power--in the form of appointments, reelection support, fundraising, etc. He twisted a couple arms to get passed global warming legislation, massive land grabs, reckless spending plans, massive borrowing programs--all things that the vast majority of Republicans opposed and had been fighting for years. In the first few years, the Republicans objected with only a whimper, wanting to be supportive of their party leader. He appoints leftist judges and all the Republican loyalists did was say, "well, maybe he'll do better next time." To add insult to injury, the MSM reports these as "bi-partisan" legislation and lauds Schwarzenegger's ability to "get things done." Conservatives, and most all Republicans, are left almost powerless under the media blitz.
When all is said and done, he has been able to accomplish more for the liberal agenda than any Democrat could have dreamed of. I see the same thing happening under a McCain presidency. With any of the candidates in the White House it is going to be a bad four years. I see the best hope as GRIDLOCK against the weakest opponent and one on the opposing team. Having our quarterback give the ball to the opposing team does not make for many touchdowns on our side of the scoreboard.
Sorry that was so longwinded but I was impressed with your willingness to engage in dialogue, even if we don't agree. I thought I'd give you a bit of background as to where my political passions come from.
Your writting style reminds me of Ann Coulter's, btw. That's a good thing. ;)
Wow! That is quite a compliment! Thank you. :-)