Posted on 09/22/2005 5:11:53 PM PDT by RWR8189
That doesn't make sense. His bill with Kennedy is softer on illegals than the rest of the party, but somehow his "comments" are "in line with the animating spirit" of Republican primary voters? Looks like New Age mumbo-jumbo.
Dear oceanview,
"gay marriage for example has made its greatest strides ..."
So far at the state level, only.
I don't think that most folks would expect Mr. Bush to interfere at that level.
"only on the litmus test social issues - which neither McCain or Rudy will move the ball on either way if elected president. "
Well, I don't know about Sen. McCain. I do know that Mr. Giuliani would be unlikely to try to propose any federal limits on abortion; if it were to come up as a federal issue, he would not do anything to oppose federalized homosexual marriage; it is quite likely that he would re-introduce an "assault" weapons ban, etc.
So, in one case, we might get someone who doesn't turn the tide for us (Sen. McCain), in the other, we'd have someone who would advance the causes that we loathe.
As well, it is remotely possible that a President McCain might appoint justices to the Supreme Court who were not flaming liberals. It is highly unlikely that a President Giuliani (yech, now I have to wash my keyboard) would.
Sen. McCain wouldn't by my first choice.
Nor my second.
Perhaps not my third.
But I could hold my nose and pull the lever for him in the general election.
Short of his having a Damascus-like conversion experience, I could never, ever vote for Mr. Giuliani for president.
sitetest
it depends on who the opponent is. if its some unknown republican, who is "pure" on the litmus test issues, but otherwise unknown or uninspiring - we lose.
with Richardson on the ticket, states in the southwest with large hispanic populations - AZ, NV, NM, CO - will be in play. so will states like Ohio, that were close last time.
Hillary can win this thing.
McCain's health seems to be fine, and he's younger than Reagan when he ran for his second term.
I don't think either one of those will be a factor. I also think a not insignificant number of Democrats would vote for McCain.
He'd get almost all the military votes in a match up with Hillary.
He wants so badly to be president of something, anything.
You useless morons - every conservative grassroots organization in America (which a Republican MUST have to win) like Focus on the Family is going to tear McCain a new asshole the second McCain's Bullshit Express rolls into Iowa.
The grassroots feels they didn't get much out of Bush beyond modest taxcuts and Foreign policy, and the conservatives WILL be looking for a solid conservative, not another moderate like Bush ie that means NO RUDY or MCCAIN!
That is not and will not be the choice.
if the current SCOTUS tosses the defense of marriage act - can Bush do anything about that? what powers do you think he has?
don't confuse positions Rudy had to take as mayor of liberal NYC - with what he might do as president. he has a strong background as a lawyer and a prosecutor, and I hardly see his record as indicative of him appointing ruth bader ginsburg like justices.
Then you're brainless. And I don't understand why you're posting on this website.
"with Richardson on the ticket, states in the southwest with large hispanic populations"
1) 40% of the 41 million Hispanics in the US are here ILLEGALLY and can't vote (easily). And the ones that do vote are only 5% of the voting population wheras white voters are 82% of the electorate.
2) Richardson is an adulterer. Hillary's VEEP will either be Mark Warner or Evan Bayh, Richardson is a nonstarter.
"More Republicans will support him than you think."
I won't.
Nor I ..
All about McCain
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1306796/posts?page=14#14
WTF am I saying! LOL
Rudy will not win PERIOD!
The GOP Primary voters are not going to nominate a liberal/Moderate Republican anymore than the Democrats will nominate a Conservative/Moderate Democrat in 2008.
I suppose you expect a reply after that.
One thing's for sure: you don't speak for anybody other than a few knuckle draggers in your klavern.
a solid conservative, who is unknown and uninspiring - WILL LOSE.
In 2000, we had a well known candidate, good name recognition, well funded, that the american people were comfortable with because his father had been president, who was the governor of a large state - AND WE LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.
and in 2004, as an incumbent, we WON BY ONE STATE.
these Reagan style conservative landslides are not out there to be had anymore.
Hillary would never carry AZ.
McCain is this season's rock star, having followed Guiliani and Condoleeza Rice. I still think three years is enough time for somebody better suited to gain name recognition (how many people outside of Arkansas had heard of The Bent One in 1990?) As far as the Dimmiecrats go, they may actually start looking beyond the Hildebeast (who won't be electable for anything higher than Senator) for someone like Mike Warner or even Joe Lieberman in a bid to move away from the hardcore antiwar lefties and make some claim to the middle.
And neither will I. If he gets the republican nomination he is going to need every bit of the independent vote he can get.
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.