Posted on 09/26/2004 1:54:16 PM PDT by JLS
Bill First 5/2 John McCain 7/2 Rudolph Guiliani 7/2 George Pataki 9/2 Chuck Hagel 6 Mitt Romney 6 Bill Owens 8 Tom Ridge 8 George Allen 12 Norm Coleman 12 Lindsey Graham 14 Sam Brownback 14 Arnold Schwarzenegger 66 Dick Cheney 66 Jeb Bush 66 Laura Bush 100
Rice is pro - choice also. It is also hard for any non married person to become president. Americans like for their leaders to have the facade of a stable family life.
i personally love rice but she is a jeane kirkpatrick type former democrat turned pro defense republican.
....and this is coming from a former young conservative dem turned conservative republican.
While several "groups" make up the coalition that is the GOP it is unreasonable to suggest that any one of the segments should remain if their issues are forfeited.
I'm saying that social conservatives shouldn't act like social issues are the only things that should matter to the GOP.
But they are the preeminent concern of social conservatives like myself. But your earlier point that the GOP could survive without the social conservatives deserves more discussion. It maybe possible that a candidate like Rudy G. would pull enough social liberals into the GOP that the social conservative would become irrelevant.
Did I ever say I was a liberal? What I'm saying is that ideology alone does not win Presidential elections. It is the far-right "Activists," the ones who say they will protest the Party's direction by staying home on election day who are betraying the Party, more so than the RINOS who make up a minority.
You are beginning to sound more and more like a Buchananite troll. I am saying that so-called "Social conservatives" who are willing to abandon the Party need to grow up.
Those who think that the Christian right will support a pro-choice party are sadly delusionsed. And those who think the GOP can prosper without the Christian right, prosper as the party of smaller government, lower taxes, and strong foreign policy need to look to UK's Tories for their future, a permanent minority, a couple of dozen senate seats and a third of the house.
"If the GOP abandoned fiscal conservatism, began advocating for large government spending programs and say universal health care, would you remain loyal to the party?"
That's a straw man argument. The GOP is not abandoning its core beliefs because of the RINOS. My whole point is that we as conservatives should present a united front to the libtards, whether we are moderates, fiscal conservatives, or otherwise.
Bill Richardson would be tough. If you have ever seen him in a TV interview he is likeable, knowedgable, and a straight talker. He is a frequent guest on FOX, Talk Radio, and other non-liberal outlets where he holds his own with conservatives, argues the left's cause without screaming, crying, acting like a lunatic, or resorting to a "big lie." He is a truly dangerous politician. Bill Richardson has all the positive people vibes Bill Clinton had but without the icky feeling afterward. Look for Richardson-Bayh.
Nothing else binds us to the party. Nothing.
Who are you calling a troll?
What does Buchanan have to do with anything?
Social Conservatives need to grow up?
Go review your posts on this thread and then look at mine.
You have ignored all my major points and posted like a petulant child.
I'm sorry you can't deal with the reality of the party you've chosen to join.
You've made a fool of yourself.
A newbie like you is calling me a troll?
You joined 2004-07-02
You ought to get a little Freeper hair on your chest before you walk around calling people Trolls.
You do know that you outed yourself by using the term "far-right" don't you?
That term isn't used around here much, at least not by Freepers.
What a Troll.
Sigh...can anybody else out there help me explain my position? Namely, that I believe in supporting those who I feel are best qualified to defend the country, and to me that means supporting those who can A: do the job and B: actually get themselves elected. And yes, there are far-right social conservatives who don't get that basing their decisions on who to vote for soley on the basis of ideology can make them just as bad as the moonbats on the left. There's a reason Pat Buchanan didn't get the 1996 Republican nomination, after all.
I know that there are problems in the party. But I would still rather support Guliani over John "I'm still whining because I lost the 2000 primary" McCain, and certainly over Her Hillariness.
For me, as I've already said, it's a matter of conservatives being unifed as a group during this critical time. We need to show that we have real tolerance for our moderates, not just give it lip service like the Libs do.
She'll sew up a boatload of votes from women simply because she's a woman herself, and she's running for the presidency.
The only positive aspect of having Hillary run, will be the fact that it should solidify the GOP base, as much as this fabled base could ever possibly solidify.
Throw Barack Obama in the ticket, and the GOP loses the majority of black votes we may have gained over the past few decades.
Tim Pawlenty, MN (R) Governor
"I'm a professional political consultant in Florida for whatever that's worth."
Well, that explains it.
While the GOP doesn't have the power to select a candidate, they can sure give a candidate sufficient exposure to anchor their countenance in people's minds and prepare them for the next election; it wasn't a roll of the dice that got Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Barack Obama on prime time TV delivering speeches, but offered Alan Keyes a few minutes during dinner, and "Reverend" Al Sharpton six minutes after everyone had tuned in to their local news.
"Why would we intentionally wreck the winning est coalition since Roosevelt?"
Why do you assume that?
Because Giuliani is personally pro-choice?
That can be a non-starter, specially if Bush can have the SCOTUS secured by the end of his next term.
"Where are you from in Florida?"
I live in the Banana Republic of Florida; I am the Banana Republican!
Now we're talking politics!
Rudy beating Hillary in the Senate race may have the interesting side effect of setting in place a crosscheck for the GOP against the possibility of a Hillary for President campaign, thus relegating her to the #2 spot on a ticket. I think that the DNC would shudder at the thought of running someone for the presidency against an opponent who had just recently defeated them in a major race with lots and lots of TV coverage.
Huh...
Bush IS a mod.
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.