Since when do Conservatives march in lockstep. Conservatism is a movement that welcomes debate and ideas, not a movement that squelches it. Most of us haven’t seen anyone who is worth voting for, but that is no reason to rip on ones we don’t like.
Suppose Tancredo is the only one that meets the criteria and will only get 5% of the vote, do we have to vote for him?? Isn’t that political suicide??
Pray for W and Our Troops
One way to squelch “debate and ideas” is to post some of the kinds of comments that have been made against Rudy and his supporters. Some are so abusive and overstated that they degrade the quality of debate, making fewer intelligent people want to participate. I don’t suggest that conservatives “march in lockstep.” It’s actually some of the Rudy-bashers who seem to want that ... marching, of course, in their direction.
Only if you ignore the dynamic which will have 30+% of the electorate voting against whatever Democrat is running. Only if you ignore the votes Tancredo can bring in.
If all the dead folks in all the graveyards voted Dem, I doubt short of either pogrom or fraud, that they'd get 95% of the vote.
Conservatives are constantly told they will sink the Republican Party and elect a Democrat if they don't vote Republican.
So nominate a Conservative.
The rest of the people who will vote against Hillary or O'bama will get on board. (At least that is what we are told when a less than conservative nominee is proposed).
I really don't see too many likely Republican voters pulling the lever for a Dem because they are all fired up for abortion, open borders, gay marriage, or gun control, just to mention a few salient issues.
Conservatism is a movement that welcomes debate and ideas, not a movement that squelches it.
Imagine for a moment that Hillary Clinton, as part of her "conversation" with the American people, asks a room full of liberals who their dream candidate would be. And imagine some guy in the back, a guy wearing a Dean 2004 T-shirt and a deadly serious look, raises his hand and says, "What the Democrats need to win isn't you or Obama. You need to run Tom Tancredo." Does that make any sense? Should the Hildebeest even begin to take that guy's opinion seriously?
we're talking about the conservative movement here, not the "Run a guy who said he and Bill Clinton share a lot of policy views" movement.
Then there's this:
Suppose Tancredo is the only one that meets the criteria and will only get 5% of the vote, do we have to vote for him?? Isn’t that political suicide??
I'm not sure I've even seen anyone supporting tancredo on this board lately. There's a technical term in political science for someone who thinks a poll nine months out from the primaries means anything. The word is "gullible."
When Rudy supporters act as if he's the only guy who has a shance of beating the anointed Dem, it means that they have no idea how elections work, or that they are insulting the intelligence of their fellow Freepers.