Posted on 02/06/2007 10:43:27 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
BWWWWWAAAAAHHHHH!
And here's the new ad campaign:
Join the Party of One!!
In fact, I think I'll start calling these people the "Party of One," referring to your excellent and insightful take on their position.
The Party of One---where you can always vote for a candidate who thinks just like you!!!
Ann Coulter has jumped the shark.
"no doubt about it"
Yes there is; polls are not that reliable. Besides, many months of primaries, then months of campaigning, with the left-stream media slandering the Republicans, are ahead of us. Today's polls are meaningless. Did you read my post, showing (from history) how wrong polls can be, especially when conducted by various liberal organs?
Sorry - I don't buy it.
Seeing Rudy in the White House INSTEAD of Hillary does not mean we are "giving up everything important to us".
Sitting back and allowing Hillary or Obama to win the White House is flat out nuts.
Your principles are going to mean doodley squat with either of them in the Oval Office.
Ok, so NYC didn't see its crime rate drop during Rudy's 8 years....He had nothing to do with that. He was not a US Attorney who locked up members of the mob. Nahhh, he's not a crime fighter at all. Geez, this is getting ridiculous, people.
All polls, including conservative mouth organs, had the Dems winning the 2006 elections, it was just a matter of how much....and if you think Rudy wouldn't beat Hillary today, you are nuts. The guy is very popular right now. Whether it stays that way is another story. But the guy is popular, whether you like it or not. If he makes it to the general election, I'm casting my vote for him; the alternative is too mind-numbing to ponder.
Pro-abort politicians, and folks like you, have been complicit in more brutal deaths of Americans than any Iranian ever dreamed of having the power to commit. The total is now about 50 million dead, in fact. I guess you guys are shooting for 100 million, eh?
Right about Dukakis vs. Bush, but the polls did show D. ahead of GHWB by double digits, and they also showed Mondale (there! I finally remembered the correct liberal nonentity!) ahead of Reagan.
The liberal wing of the Rep. Party has played this game for decades. "------ (fill in name of conservative candidate) can't win. Therefore we need to nominate ------ (fill in Rockefeller, Romney, GHWB, Rudy, Romney...or the latest liberal Rep. fad of the moment)."
He needs professional help for a lot of reasons, actually.
Yep. It's amazing that anybody would still fall for it.
If someone hadn't supported that "single issue," for you, how many other issues would you have?
Boy, that's a pretty easy way to deflect your own responsibility in the matter.
Surrendering my principles before a single vote is cast is not going to happen!
But it's a free country. You go ahead and settle for Rudy.
I'll definitely whine if that happens. I'll whine "why didn't the GOP give the American people a true alternative to Hillary." We can do better.
See post # 301 . . .
Good question. Good luck getting an answer that isn't the equivilent of a schoolyard taunt...
You said it yourself. Rudy is very popular RIGHT NOW. That's because the media are hyping him, the way they always do with the most liberal Rep. candidates, and because the party rank-and-file haven't done their homework on his positions. Many of them will have plenty of time to find out there is much more to this guy than some noble speeches after 9/11, and they won't like what they find.
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.