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

Skip to comments.

Holding Your Nose, AKA the Lesser of Two Evils (Vanity)

Posted on 02/11/2007 6:00:59 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007

It boggles the mind.

First of all, it's only a few months after the 2006 elections ended, and we're already on the move towards the 2008 elections. I'm sorry, but doesn't Bush have two years left? A lot can change until then.

Secondly, let's look at some of the current frontrunners for the GOP.

Mitt Romney. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani.

Romney has flip-flopped on positions many times, so I wouldn't give him my vote. John McCain, despite his strong conservative rating from the ACU (lifetime of 83), he is partially responsibility for the travesty of McCain-Feingold, aka CFR. He is also a supporter of amnesty. Sorry.

Giuliani, although strong on national defense, is a devout Leftist. Pro-abortion. Pro-gun control. Pro-homosexual rights. He embraces illegal immigration. It stuns me that he has as large a following on Free Republic as he does.

There are far better candidates out there. Tom Tancredo (lifetime rating of 99). Sam Brownback (lifetime rating of 95). Duncan Hunter (lifetime rating of 92).

So why?

Why are so many going to hold their noses and compromise their beliefs? Name recognition? Why? It bewilders me.

We have Pro-Life candidates in Hunter, Brownback, and Tancredo. We have anti-illegal immigration and Pro-border control candidates in Hunter and Tancredo (this is where Brownback slips up; support for a guest worker program? Voted yes on allowing illegals access to Social Security? No thanks.). We have pro-second amendment candidates in all three (NRA gave Hunter an A+, and both Brownback and Tancredo an A). All three are supportive of the War on Terror.

So please. Tell me. Why not vote for any of these three (particularly Tancredo and Hunter; Brownback's position on immigration irks me)? Why not?

Who cares about name recognition at this point? It's 2007. November 2008 is a long way away. A lot can change between now and then.

I refuse to compromise on MY beliefs in this matter. I will not vote for a candidate who is socially no different from the socialists on the Left. Hanging up your hat at this point is akin to giving up.

Don't.

Vote for Hunter. Vote for Tancredo. Get the word out.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: duncanhunter; johnmccain; tomtancredo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-211 next last
To: DocH
If that's ALL we care about (how can a true conservative just flippantly set aside two of our most important issues, the protection of innocent LIFE, and our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS)

Your precious social issues mean squat as long as government expands, liberal programs expand, and taxes increase.

161 posted on 02/11/2007 7:57:55 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Good night Chesty, wherever you are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: nctexan
Don't you see that a sin of 'omission' is equal to a sin of 'commission'.

I am not going to omit the Second Amendment... Clintong or Julie-Annie? Neither, there isn't one dime's worth of difference...

162 posted on 02/11/2007 8:00:15 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

The Second Amendment is not a social issue...


163 posted on 02/11/2007 8:00:54 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: DocH

I found this one:

http://www.angelfire.com/blog/gop2008/scoreboard.html


164 posted on 02/11/2007 8:03:46 AM PST by mom4kittys (If velvet could sing, it would sound like Josh Groban)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The Second Amendment is not a social issue...

Neither is property rights, a good solid basis for the right to life. But whatever. When most of the sheeple are actually happy to be the junior partner in their own life behind the federal and state government and think it's cool to get stuff taken from people that they envy, things don't look good.

165 posted on 02/11/2007 8:05:22 AM PST by MichiganConservative (Cthulu '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: DocH
How about keeping unborn children safe in their wombs?

Abortion existed before Giuliani

How about not infringing upon a law-abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment rights?

20,000+ gun control laws, some written by Congressional Republicans, preceded Giuliani. Congressional Republicans let stand big city gun bans rather than taking the matter to the Supremes

How about not running a virtual POLICE-STATE (nyc) and cooking the crime books in order to ahcieve the appearance of a lower crime rate?

I don't give a damn about the rights of hustling squee-gee men, sheisty homeless bums, pimps and hos, and gangsta thugs

How about not running a virtual welfare state and redistibuting citizens tax dollars to the illegal aliens you allow into our midst?

Giuliani cut welfare rolls, which declined faster than the national average. Most of the illegals in NYC weren't Mexican criminals who sneaked over the border

How about not using social engineering to help promote the homosexual agenda?

How about worrying about your life instead of what two guys are doing in the privacy of their own home

166 posted on 02/11/2007 8:05:57 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Good night Chesty, wherever you are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The Second Amendment is not a social issue

Please tell me what did conservatives in Congress do about all those gun control laws. Rudy is not responsible for gun control.

167 posted on 02/11/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Good night Chesty, wherever you are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; Extremely Extreme Extremist
It doesn't matter...

If the mysterious "they" have convinced you and a lot of others around here that congressional districts of 750,000/1,000,000 don't matter, that 435 is a number carved in stone, then it really doesn't matter because the battle is already lost to the oligarchy.

There's nothing wrong with this country that repeal of the 17th Amendment and an additional 3,565 congressmen wouldn't cure. We have the tech tools now so that we don't even need Washington as the "center" of gub'mint anymore, except as a national symbol for tourists.

Any way, I think it does matter. The House was meant to be close to the people and even an old blind guy like me can see how the size of districts, the gerrymandering and rigging has exploded exponentially over the years since Congress capped their own number, a number they can change at will.

168 posted on 02/11/2007 8:10:33 AM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Nuc1

I don't believe that Giuliani will nominate constructionists.
He has expressed admiration of Ginsburg.

There isn't a single good reason for me to vote for him, and
a myriad of reasons I shouldn't.


169 posted on 02/11/2007 8:11:55 AM PST by Politicalmom ("Always vote for principle...and your vote is never lost."-John Quincy Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
It's pretty simple, really. In any election, vote for the best candidate in the race. In the primaries, that means voting for the candidate you agree with 90+% of the time. Work hard, donate, try your best to get your perfect candidate to win the primaries.

In the general election, if your perfect candidate is there, great! You did a good job and are in an enviable position. But if your candidate didn't make it, vote for the best candidate in the race! That may mean choosing between the candidate you agree with 60% of the time and the one you agree with 10% of the time.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

170 posted on 02/11/2007 8:14:52 AM PST by poindexter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

First all, the three leaders are there only because the leftist media wants them to be there. They will ignore the true conservatives because it fits their agenda. It's a win-win to elect a socialist no matter what party they belong to.

Before the primaries, work for a true conservative who best fits your ideals. Donate money, work for them and tell your friends. We still have a little less than two years to elect someone who can save this country.


171 posted on 02/11/2007 8:17:49 AM PST by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Mostly correct. But easier said than done.

Your any candidate with enough effort can become a major candidate almost overnight does not mean that a Kucinich, Hunter, Tancredo or Sharpton can be nominated, much less elected. "Effort" surely must = a combination of money, name recognition, organization, constituency, message, etc.-- things that do not materialize "overnight" or in the case of some, (Kucinich or Frist for example) ever.

172 posted on 02/11/2007 8:20:10 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

You're blaming others for Gingrich's "personal destruction"?

I loved Gingrich until I realized he was a vile excuse for a human being. The way he treated his wife was unforgiveable.


173 posted on 02/11/2007 8:22:38 AM PST by Politicalmom ("Always vote for principle...and your vote is never lost."-John Quincy Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
There isn't a single good reason for me to vote for him, and a myriad of reasons I shouldn't.

Actually, there are two good reasons to vote for him: Hillary Clinton.

174 posted on 02/11/2007 8:23:12 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy
Actually, there are two good reasons to vote for him: Hillary Clinton.

What if I don't want to vote based on fear?

Know that when you vote for Cthulu, he WILL eat your soul. But it will be towards the end, after he eats his opponents.

175 posted on 02/11/2007 8:25:12 AM PST by MichiganConservative (Cthulu '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Snarky question ahoy.

Why do you do this Lord of the Rings comparison on so many threads?

The final movie came out four years ago, which would render this pop culture reference something less than timely.

Or, as my debate coach would have pegged it, interesting but irrelevant.


176 posted on 02/11/2007 8:28:17 AM PST by Xenalyte (Anything is possible when you don't understand how anything happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
What if I don't want to vote based on fear?

Who does? If you really think that wasting your vote on a candidate who has absolutely no chance is being fearless (or wise), then feel free to join those Perot voters who boldly stood up and were counted ... for Bill Clinton.

One needn't fear Hillary or any candidate in order to recognize that a less than ideal victory is preferable to a glorious defeat.

177 posted on 02/11/2007 8:34:25 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Anything less than a conservative Republican Presidential nominee isn't acceptable.

Better four years of Hillary than eight years of a RINO and/or another Democratic. But, it won't have to come to that if conservatives rally around a true conservative candidate.

McCain and Giuliani were being forced on us in the same way that Obama is being forced on the nation. Conservatives need to realize the popularity of both is an illusion presented by the drive-by media.

178 posted on 02/11/2007 8:36:23 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy

What if I don't agree with any of the premises in your argument?

I think those Perot voters were counted for Perot, not Clinton.

How do you know that having the Lizard Queen as empress would be worse than having Rudi? Maybe the Congress would fight her and nothing would get done. And I also believe the decline and fall of the American democracy (All hail the great god Democracy!) is pretty much inevitable. The republic is already dead.

It doesn't really matter, because no matter how much I know Cthulu could beat Her Scaliness, we will have a reptilesbian overlordess.


179 posted on 02/11/2007 8:39:36 AM PST by MichiganConservative (Cthulu '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
McCain and Giuliani were being forced on us in the same way that Obama is being forced on the nation. Conservatives need to realize the popularity of both is an illusion presented by the drive-by media.

So the really popular, non-illusion candidates would be ... ?

180 posted on 02/11/2007 8:43:50 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-211 next last

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.

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