Ping
Good morning, Jedward...
Thank you for the invitation to your new thread — the header is, as far as I can tell, very professional and visually appealing....
A small, humble suggestion: Rename the thread to “The Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic Thread”...
Or, at the very least, include an entry for “None of the Above”....
I’ve been told (nicely, so far) that these are the candidates we’ve been offered, and, if I want to keep my “conservative” credentials, I should just shut up and choose between them.
Hogwash.
I refuse to hold my nose and “settle” — I believe that our Nation is in Crisis, and I will continue to speak out against those who would perpetuate it (or, worse, ignore it), and insist - nay, demand - that we be presented with more than we’ve been given to date.
We deserve more than we’ve been offered, and I, for one, withhold my support until I’m presented with the candidate that is worthy of the challenges we face.
Show me a candidate who does not make obeisance to punditry, pollsters, and political correctness.
Show me a candidate who openly declares that we are at war abroad and at home, and will unabashedly name *all* of our enemies, foreign and domestic - and vow to defeat them all.
Show me a candidate who will reverse the congressional coup against the presidency - not one who is (or was) a congresscritter with a vested interest in perpetuating the coup.
Show me a candidate who, when presented with the proposition that “The majority of Americans believe this country is heading in the wrong direction”, does not automatically translate that to “We’re not Liberal enough”.
Show me a candidate who has the courage to tell us that it is NOT the job of Government to make us all “happy, healthy, wealthy and wise”.
Show me a candidate who holds “Principle” above “Compromise”, and refuses to sacrifice one for the other.
Show me a Leader.
Thanks for the ping.
Mdefranc posted some changed nomination probabilities per Intrade. My question would be: Is this a viable unbiased measure of who actually “wins” a debate, at least with the folks who put their money where their mouth is?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1828433/posts?page=37#16
Today’s CHANGED nomination probabilities, per Intrade contracts:
Rudy Giuliani 29.9% (-2.1%)
F Thompson 16.3% (+1.2%)
Mitt Romney 17.5% (+2.2%)
Ron Paul 0.4% (+0.2%)
16 posted on 05/04/2007 9:22:29 AM PDT by mdefranc (?)
TANKS for the ping,,,Very Good Thread and a Great place to start :
http://louisianaconservative.com/
louisianaconservative.com
A firestorm of protest erupted in the Louisiana blogosphere when it was reported that real conservatives would be excluded from a FOX NEWS presidential debate. Nick Bouterie, the Conservative Cajun himself, was manifestly upset in his most recent post. “What in the hell is wrong with these morons?” he asked. That’s an excellent question Nick, with a complex answer. In short what’s wrong with them is the same thing that’s been wrong with them since the “big government conservatives” (some call them neocons) high jacked our movement. (snip)
In short, it’s no small wonder that Fox News has sought to exclude the ant-immigration candidates from the debate. People like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are out of touch with Rupert Murdoch’s vision of conservatism as proclaimed on the FOX NEWS NETWORK and in his magazine THE WEEKLY STANDARD. It is a vision of America overrun with illegal aliens which are continuously driving down our standard of living. It is a world of constantly expanding foreign commitments in the international community that seek to bankrupt our country and undermine our sovereignty. If this message doesn’t sound like an electoral winner, well that’s because it isn’t. But it’s the current message of the Bush administration, a message that the top tier Republican candidates are echoing.
Way to go, Mr. Kristol.
By Chad E. Rogers >>> http://www.thedeadpelican.com/ <<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lookin’...