Posted on 02/17/2007 9:22:00 PM PST by FairOpinion
This wisp of a notion is simply this: Maybe a Democrat should win in 2008.
Personally, I dont believe in this poltergeist, at least not yet. But every now and then, I must confess, I do shiver from its touch.
The idea goes something like this: If you believe that the war on terror is real really real then you think it is inevitable that more and bloodier conflicts with radical Islam are on the way, regardless of who is in the White House. If the clash of civilizations is afoot, then the issues separating Democrats and Republicans are as pressing as whether the captain of the Titanic is going to have fish or chicken for dinner. Theres a showdown coming. Period. Full stop. My task isnt to convince you that this view is correct (though I basically believe it is), but merely that it is honestly and firmly held by many on the right and by a comparative handful on the left.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Does he pull many Democrat votes? Or is he too idiotic even for them?
Yes he is.
McCain = despicable, self-centered, RINO.
Romney = pretty face, empty suit.
Giuliani = gun-stealing, gay-liking, good communicator, otherwise good leader & fiscal/defense-oriented conservative.
Gingrich = damaged goods (impression, personal), good leader, idea-man, good communicator, definitive conservative.
Others = ZERO name recognition.
I totally agree with Jim - NO more luke-warm, pseudo-conservative, uninspiring Bush family members (or Clintons - obviously). We are a republic, not a monarchy. I greatly admire the current Bush's perseverence in fighting the radical Islamic enemy, but his bureaucratic, boring, politically correct, rhetoric-driven, non-confrontational approach to politics and "fighting" the Dims just ain't gettin' it done. So, what's our choice?
Is there someone waiting in the wings that can overcome the name recognition thing? If Newt runs, can he overcome his negative image? My wife, who's very conservative, doesn't like him because of his marital history & the Dims' past hatchet job on his character.
Can we trust Rudy to NOT side with the Dims to steal our guns? Risking flames - despite Keyes' (whom I greatly admire as a conservative speaker) passionate arguments, I don't care much about the abortion issue. If a bunch of libs wanna kill their babies & limit their future population - that's fine with me :). And Guiliani's insistence on not applying the word "marriage" to gay or civil unions (or whatever the hell the compromise term will eventually be) is about the best we can hope for in the long run IMHO. He'll just make it happen sooner than later.
So, who will it be!!??? Like someone else mentioned, regardless of the nominee, I GUARANTEE I'm voting "R" this next presidential election, just like the last. ANYTHING is better than a socialist, power-hungry, America-hating Dim who's Euro-cowardice appeasement tendencies will get a few million Americans killed sooner rather than later. But, I'd really like to not have to hold my nose while voting for once.
Reagan was called "the great Communicator" -- he was very charismatic, in addition to being a conservative.
I don't know why there aren't stronger Republican presidential hopefuls, but we can only choose from those who declare their interest.
The primary is about a year away, and that'll go by pretty fast.
Apparently, no matter who you choose, or what side you take, you are accused of having been bought.
"Imagine Hillary with 250 dems in the House."
Yes and I think that he has already started the process, sub rosa, in making a deal with someone he is certain is going to win not only the GOP primary, but also the general election.
I'd take Haley or Sessions in a New York minute.
Exactly. We can only work with what we have to work with.
We need to draft Bob Riley the governor of Alabama.
Have you forgotten his last numbers? yes, he pulls a quite a number of Dems, as well as the off the radar LEFTY KOOKS.
We are in complete accord, I see.
On FoxNews they were talking about Nader running, but made the point, that probably a very conservative person will run on some third party ticket, and he will likely syphon off more conservatives from the Republican candidate, than Nader will from the Dem candidate.
NOT TRUE.
Pete Session is supporting, Guiliani.
We have what/who we have and that's that.
No, it is not correct --- Pete Sessions is supporting Guilani, NOT Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
What show was that on? I haven't been watching much T.V. these past few days.
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.