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.
Exactly. And the result was precisely the same as if they had voted for Clinton.
Whoever David Gregory says it is, that's who. Be a good sheep.
Shifting target. The American sheeple are fat, lazy, stupid, and immoral. If 48% hadn't voted for Clinton in '92 and '96, then he wouldn't have been president. If instead, those 48% had voted for the libertarian candidate, Clinton would have come in 4th or 5th, as he should have in a country of virtuous men that actually revered freedom and liberty over getting free stuff from people they envy.
I won't vote for McInsane. Period. I'm almost to the point that if there's a hint of RINO in the candidate, I'm going to sit the next one out.
Great debating point! Wish I'd thought of it.
What I was trying to say with that joke was that most people just look to the media to tell them who to vote for or who is an "electable" candidate. I think that's really herd-like and I don't really give a damn what the media says. I don't follow their authority. To hell with news announcers telling me who's a good candidate. I think all this Rudi-loving is really herd-like. Too bad you didn't get it.
You sure you love this country? Or do you just hate its people?
If instead, those 48% had voted for the libertarian candidate ....
If pigs could fly, we'd have eaten pork wings during the Super Bowl.
That's the way I see them. They are addicted to their socialism and content in their bondage. They threw away their birthright of freedom and liberty for "safety" and handouts. The American people are hard to like when they are working on perfecting the socialist utopia they deserve.
Get your facts straight. I have never said that I would sit out. I have voted in every single election since I became eligible.
I intend to continue that. I have never voted for a candidate with the baggage that Rudy is lugging around. If you want to consider that a vote for the Dems, that is your opinion. I frankly do not care.
What a great tagline and how very true in these darkening days.
Yep, that was him. here is his link that explains his record and positions:
http://www.issues2000.org/House/Tom_Tancredo.htm
The American people are in bondage to the state. I want a much, much smaller federal government and state government. Last I checked, that was "conservative". The American sheeple in general don't have a problem with the income tax or its associated violations of rights, or they think it's their "duty" to pay as the "price" of citizenship. Those people are content in their bondage.
Lots of people are living off the largess of the income tax, and are happy to be house slaves.
Our nation was once great. It is headed for the same fate as Europe, as a post-Christian socialist hell hole. The sheeple are too stupid, immoral, or fat and lazy to do anything about it. Many actually want that and want to be in the vanguard of Christian-hunters/killers.
Reagan talked about the income tax and welfare and don't care a damn about limited government and following the constitution. Those things are what Americans want today. If they didn't, the libertarian and/or Constitution party would be much bigger than they are.
Half of Americans actively support the communists/socialists in the Democrat party.
Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm a liberal or a Democrat. Just more of a misanthropic pessimist, maybe.
You probably know the full quote, but:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."-John Quincy Adams
This should read:
Reagan talked about the income tax and welfare. The American sheeple today like the income tax and welfare and don't care a damn about limited government and following the constitution. Those things, welfare and taxes, are what Americans want today. They think they'll get welfare and the other guy will get taxed. If they didn't want this situation, the libertarian and/or Constitution party would be much bigger than they are.
Now I checked out [Duncan Hunter's] website and he's only touting 3 issues. Now fair trade, pro-defense, and being pro-life is fine, but it's all moot if government continues to confiscate our incomes and promote liberal policies that destroys families and promotes destructive lifestyles.
I'm not that familiar with Duncan Hunter myself, he's a Californian and I don't know much about California Republicans and their politics.
But I don't think, offhand, that anyone to the right of Ahnuld would be much in favor of confiscatory tax policies, even in California, home of the original tax revolt.
Are you saying Hunter, despite taking a pro-life position, is also pro-gay and a social liberal? I wouldn't know, but have you seen something in his record? The candidates' ACU ratings are here:
Regarding the last part of your post, I think it is more about the homosexual agenda--not gay people in general. I have known some very nice gay people, but I don't think they should have special rights and priviliges just because they are gay.
Let me quote your previous post and logic:
"In that unfortunate event, my vote would be 3rd party. Of course, it will make no difference in the results. But, my conscience will be clear."
That's the same net effect for the DEM candidate. Same result as my post stated... one net vote supporting the DEM winning. That's fine if that's your view, but my conscience would not be clear.
How'd that work out?
I agree, there's a lot of time left for somebody like Fred Thompson to step up.
Nobody could say he's not a "Law and Order" candidate.
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.