Posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:19 AM PST by Al Simmons
Psst! EV is a political consultant for one of the Democrat hopefuls....pass it on. LOL
Great statement.
Of course, here lately that means you are a gay agenda promoting, baby killing RINO.
Typical liberal. Lie and then laugh about it.
Duh, you don't actively promote a conservative like Hunter, who has the best chance out of all the 1-2% running. You are waiting for Alan Keye$.
When will Alan announce?
You haul out the derogatory requisite "liberal" taunt when anyone hits a nerve, huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe cuz he didn't want to be a senator he wanted to be POTUS.
That is one of the stupidest arguments I've heard yet! Hitlery ran for senate and she is running again. John Kerry ran for the senate in 2002 and ran for president in 2004. ALL congressmen are up for reelection every two years. Are you saying that Rudy didn't have time to campaign last year? Because all I've heard is how he "selflessly" campaigned for other candidates last year.
And let's not forget that if Rudy could have won Hitlery's senate seat back in November, her political career would have been over and we would have a GOP majority in the senate.
I can't believe what has happened to the political base. it's so senseless that I first thought it humorous, until I realized that the disease ran very deep in the base.
We have always differed within the base, but we always put it aside to vote in the general elections, and we did this as a minority party under much pressure during those days.
Now, things have markedly changed, with so much acidity directed by the social conservatives and the libertines (to a lesser degree)directly toward the WRONG targets!
Rather than take on their counterpart legitimate enemy within the Democrat base, they chose to direct their fire at the base and it's supporting political structure. They have essentially sawed off the limb that they were sitting on, and now blame the tree. They do this in the name of the Constitution, principle, God and victory for the Founder's, much is the same vain as any radical element that gets involved in a political fight. As such, political history, common sense and compromise are the first casualties in the fight.
The problem with this sort of thinking, is that it has never worked. It has always resulted in defeat, and is very hard to come back from. (just ask the Dem's)
IMO, it is all academic at this point. This political base will require total remodeling and reconstruction, and this will take a few election cycles to accomplish. The problem is that we have not yet hit bottom, and will be forced to endure this cycle before the 2008 smack-down. For those of us who have watched this develop and tried to stop it for years, the next two years will be very painful.
Al,
You're looking at this the wrong way. Let's face the facts that unless most of the Rudy supporters are at heart social liberals, all they care about is low taxes and a pro-business climate. With a conservative like Hunter, they get that - in other words, they get 100% of what they want. So do social conservatives. With a candidate like Rudy, the RINO types get all of what they want, but the social conservatives get none of what they want.
Now there's one scenario under which this simple logic breaks down: the Rudy supporters are in fact social liberals who *want* to live in a world where abortion is legal and we have an openly gay military. If that's the case, the issue is altogether different.
But that's not the case, given that the Rudy supporters have been denying such, right?
We've all seen your family portrait, EV, so you don't have to keep posting it.
That's SOP for the RINOs here.
There, that's better.
Excellent point. You'd think he'd be in the Duncan Hunter camp. Interesting!
It is.
If Hillary decided to become a Republican, I still wouldn't embrace her. I see Guiliani as basically a Democrat.
A major error in CT's calculations is that he is assuming 100% of each group vote.
Even in the most contended races, the normal turn out is 50% of the eligible voters.
That means, if any of the three groups could get 100% of their group to vote, it would effectively increase their votes by nearly 100%. Thus Repubs could get nearly 66% if all of the Repubs voted.
Example:
Let's say we have 100 voters.
33 Repub
33 Dem
34 Middle
Time to vote, only half show up:
16 Repub
16 Dem
17 Middle - Half go to Dem and Half go to Repub
Making the vote:
25 Repub (One Middle guy really hates Hitlery)
24 Dem
But, let's say it went the other way:
24 Repub
25 Dem
Now, let's say the Repub gets a real conservative, that pulls out all the Repub vote, but the Dem is asleep believing the polls:
42 Repub
25 Dem
We win.
Now, let's run the same scenario with Rudy:
Half the would be Repub voters go third party because Rudy is not acceptable:
8 Repubs go Constitution Party
17 Repubs (8 Repubs + 9 Middle)
24 Dem (16 Dems + 8 Middle)
Dems win. and don't get 50% of the votes. It happened in 1992, and gave us BJC, and people who think like you tried again in 1996 by forcing us to take Bob Dole, who turns anti-life and lost the Christian vote.
Don't feed us another RINO.
Well, if it isn't Mr. Treasonous Liberal himself. Don't you have your own pond of discontent to manage?
No, I'm just describing the obvious.
Compromise is like kryptonite to some around here.
They'd rather be irrelevant than compromise.
So who's your 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.