First, you have no idea whom I am supporting for the Republican nomination, so please desist from making assumptions.
Secondly, why won’t you bite? Why will no one who has stated there is a moral equivalency between the administration of a liberal Republican and a liberal Rat willing to demonstrate that by naming names?
If you’re here on FR, you have some political knowledge. You know the types of people the parties gravitate to for leadership positions.
Let’s do this: just comment on Secretary of Defense.
I believe the Rat SECDEF will be someone like Murtha, because the Rats will have to give a hat-tip to their anti-war moonbat base.
The Republican SECDEF would be someone like Duncan Hunter, Tommy Franks, maybe even Joe Lieberman.
Care to provide me with your observations on how those nominations might work out for the country? I am genuinely interested.
Finally, I am not insisting that you or anyone else settle for “nothing.” I advocate a robust primary process.
However, I challenge the notion that there is something wrong with wanting the Republican Party to win the general election. You have criticized the desire to win the general election: on what basis? Again, I am genuinely interested.
Given a choice between handing power to the Rats or to the Republicans-—and that IS our choice on Election Day-—one needs to do more than dismiss them as “no different.”
*Show me.*
I agree with you that generally the president will appoint people who agree with him (though not always, because, especially in the lower tier appointments, the party has more to say about appointments than the president).
That said, again, you have enough knowledge of where the Rat candidates are on the war and where the Republican candidates are to make some guesses on Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security, and the like.
I really would like to hear how you see that shaking out.
“I do have my favorite - Duncan Hunter, however I can vote for any of the others. except Rudy ..”
You sound like me.
Anybody but Rudy.