Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Soul Seeker
All I can say is, if conservatives don't want McCain to be the Republican nominee, then they had damn well better unite on someone, soon, and start carrying his banner. I've told the same thing to the Rats on the DUmmies board (in my evil alter ego persona) as regards Hillary.

Unless someone else catches fire, and soon, we'll come down to a McCain-Clinton race. The nominations will be pretty much settled in exactly two years, if no one else can make any significant headway.

133 posted on 02/13/2006 8:00:55 AM PST by hunter112 (Total victory at home and in the Middle East!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]


To: hunter112

Conservatives have been taking your advice, that's why they are primping Allen.

I find Allen to be spineless and semi-unprincipled, though not in the exact manner McCain is unprincipled.

Your attitude is that a) if we don't settle on a candidate McCain will be the nominee and b) we need to settle on a nominee.

Addressing the first, conservatives don't have to settle on a nominee until the debates. The people that vote in Republican primaries are NOT the average run of the mill American that gets their news through mainstream sources. Republican primary voters get theirs through the 'net, talk radio, blogs, etc... We can settle on a candidate and get the word out within a couple of weeks to a month if we want to by the time '08 comes around as the explosion of this medium will be fairly close to completed at that time. The only hindrance to waiting is that financial backers and political shakers commit early. But if their candidate loses, only some will remain bitterly opposed. the rest will try to grab hold onto the winning candidate for influence. mcCain is not guarenteed just because we hold out before giving an endorsement until closer to the primaries.

The second? Count me as someone that won't find it to be the end of the world if we don't win in '08. It won't be pleasant, but I like our choices for '12 a hell of a lot better than I like the candidates (so far) for '08. Blackwell, Steele, Swann, Barbour, even Jeb would all be preferable to the name being bantered about right now. There is nothing to state we have to concede two terms to anyone. So long as we didn't give a nom away, as with Dole, we have some excellent choices in '12. Now do I want to wait to '12? Nope. But I do want the GOp to get the message loud and clear that while I am not an absolutist in the sense the person must be Ronald Reagan or Rush Limbaugh incarnate, I do expect some traits of principled conservatism and a man of steel and character. Haven't found him/her yet.

As for Hill, I'm not convinced she'll be their candidate.

Im expecting a fight between "red state Dems" (warner), triangulation (Hill) and Hard Left (Gore). Not necessarily these names, but these factions of their party. And triangulation is the minority of the three right now.


139 posted on 02/14/2006 8:09:12 PM PST by Soul Seeker (Mr. President: It is now time to turn over the money changers' tables.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson