“But, if the election is between Rudy and Hillary - WHO WOULD YOU VOTE FOR?
A third party candidate? I consider that a wasted vote, and another vote that helps put Her HIghness in office... can we at least agree that that’s the WORST CASE SCENARIO?”
I know this wasn’t posted at me but I’m going to take the liberty of answering it anyway.
If all I’m given is the choice between horse poop and cow poop to eat.
I’ll starve.
I’ll be there on election day voting for conservative candidates. Both in the Primaries and in the general. Not for some limp wristed dimlight maggot that the Republican Party feels I should support.
If they Repubican Party gets it’s ass handed to it again in the 2008 general election they only have themselves to blame.
I will no longer compromise.
That’s what the Rudybots just don’t get. Given the choice between Hillary and Hillary (Rudy), I’ll pick hunting that day. I have better things to do with my time on a Fall day than waste it voting for a flaming liberal.
“If all I’m given is the choice between horse poop and cow poop to eat.
I’ll starve.”
Thing is, “none of the above” isn’t a choice. If the choice in the general election is between Rudy and Hillary, ONE of the two WILL be President, no matter how much you detest them both, and you will have the live with the consequences of that.
If it comes down to that choice, and you guys want to be responsible for putting Hillary in office because you can’t lower yourself to vote for Giuliani, that’s NOT doing the conservative movement any good.
If all I’m given is the choice between horse poop and cow poop to eat.
I’ll starve.
I’ll be there on election day voting for conservative candidates. Both in the Primaries and in the general. Not for some limp wristed dimlight maggot that the Republican Party feels I should support.
If they Republican Party gets it’s ass handed to it again in the 2008 general election they only have themselves to blame.
I will no longer compromise.”
Excellent post Leatherneck. Worth repeating! BTW, that “horse poop” and “cow poop” analogy cracked me up—but so true.
There are some very critical flaws in the theory that has deemed Hillary’s nomination a foregone conclusion.
Note: ALL OF THESE STATISTICS ARE BASED ON YEARS OTHER THAN WHEN A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION.
The Democrats almost never nominate the person who is the “clear favorite” a year out from the nomination. They did do it in 2000; however, Algore was the incumbent VP and he didn’t face much competition.
The last Democrat nominated who was not the incumbent VP who was the “clear favorite” a year out from the nomination was Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and again in 1956.
And it is worth noting that Gore and Stevenson both LOST.
The last Democrat nominated who was not the incumbent VP who was the “clear favorite” a year out from the nomination and actually went on to win the presidential election was Grover Cleveland in 1892. However, Cleveland had previously been POTUS which makes him more of an “astrix” than anything else.
So, who was last Democrat nominated who was not the incumbent VP or former president who was the “clear favorite” a year out from the nomination and actually went on to win the presidential election? That would be Andrew Jackson in 1828.
You put it very well. Horse or cow manure. Not gonna swallow either one.
Just checking in and saw your response. You nailed it for me as well.
This liberal projection that somehow conservatives “would be held responsible for putting Hillary in office because you can’t lower yourself to vote for Giuliani” because the GOP chose to prop up a loser instead of a winner is just that - liberal projection.
No self-respecting conservative will vote for a liberal for president - even if he has an (R) after his name...