Posted on 01/05/2008 2:17:41 PM PST by SE Mom
You're pathetic.
You want to hear a liar. Hillary’s up on the Dem debate: “I have 35 years of instituting change.”
HUH?!
I read the facts about Fred every day and see he is still polling low. I would gladly vote for him. You, however, won’t give the same consession to Romney. Just proves how childish your repeated attacks are.
So get your facts straight. And if pointing out someone's record, including the continual change in positions, is an attack, then you and the Romney camp need thicker skin- as was evident in tonight's debate.
Show me another candidate that can win the Republican and then the general election?
I heard Jason Lewis, who was filling for Rush, say that this would be the last national primary that was run this way, that the next primary would, in all probability be one day, all vote at the same time, election. It gives far too much power to two insignificant states, and frankly the rest of the country is fed up with the way they vote.
I am supporting Thompson because:
A): His conservative principles match mine
B)): He can get the country back in the right direction
C): I believe he can win- especially if conservatives and Republicans get over the 'only one who can beat _______' lie and support him.
When you settle for less, that is what you get. I'm not settling. Been there, done that.
You may be right in what you say. In the pragmatic world people feel they must back people that can win an election.
While American politics has always been built on the art of compromise; I feel that losing sight of our values and goals for the sake of compromise has led the American aim to be off the mark.
That is my only point. Duncan Hunter most closely mirrors my idea of what’s important for American values even though he is considered to not have a chance to win by some.
Also, we have backed candidates who can win over the years for so long that’s pretty much what all we do now. We have lost our foundation and issues.
For example: Immigration. This should have never happened.
DUers would.
Like it or not, Freepers and DUers are similar in a lot of ways, just with opposite beliefs.
You just have to ignore the hardcores that would piss away the party since their candidate lost.
If the USSC had a couple more strict constructionists on the bench, I might could see you POV. But giving the Dems the Senate, White House, and 2-3 SC Justices is right out.
Anyone who claims that on the one hand Right to Life or Federalism or the 2nd A is their #1 issue, and on the other hand claims they will not vote for the Republican if "their guy" isn't the pick, just to teach us all a lesson about taking SoCons for granted, needs to reexamine their priorities. The number one, a plus, most effective thing the President can do on those issues is to pick the next two Supreme Court Justices and make them strict constructionists. I don't want any Dem making those choices.
Except for McCain, who torpedoed such appointments in a Senate power play, and Guliani, who has some questionable statements on Constitutional theory, any of the GOP candidates can be trusted to pick good judges for the USSC. And those two have at least given campaign lip service to the idea. Heck, I'd rather see Ron Paul on the USSC than Ginsberg. At least I know he's read the Constitution recently.
I like Fred too, but the fact is who is conservative enough in our eyes to actually win? Knocking Romney out of the race does not necessarily help Fred. It probably insures a Guiliani presidency. Fred needs to help Fred out there on the campaign trail.
Neither of these two will be there...
The great Wiz of Waz predicts!!!
I think they should all target Huckabee and get him out ASAP. Then McCain. That leaves Fred, Mitt and Rudy.
Good point.
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.