Posted on 02/26/2015 4:50:12 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
Hello Fox:
Wake the heck up. Stop campaigning for GOP people who nobody actually wants.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The GOPelites need a diverse number of candidates to attract various groups who would oppose their selectee.
This helps dilute the opposition by splintering them amoung several candidates, thus giving a clearer path for their selectee.
Redux 2008, 2012.
We on this site are conservatives. There's a gulf between us and GOPe like Jeb.
"Hillary is out there, considering a run.
I say we much keep a female candidate in the running, because Hillary is out there."
Pandering is not an effective strategy.
Sorry I missed her speech.
I wasn’t listening to the show with the headline (I actually have an old smaller television which is on Fox most of the time, but usually just muted)
But Fox needs to recognize they have the most popular woman in American politics, right in front of them.
Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin is not pandering.
Not in the slightest.
We certainly much...:-)
Sorry about that.
I actually do that sort of thing a lot. Sorry.
:D
Thinking we need a woman candidate-—any woman-—to run against another is pandering.
I think Palin would whip Hillary in the debates, especially if her “stupid” comment about the Russians invading Ukraine if Obama was elected are brought up. That said, you may be right for the reasons you gave.
She’s done a pretty good job marginalizing herself...
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Right now, I believe preparing for Hillary’s options, is just intelligent.
Sarah Palin is my own favorite candidate, of any.
So it is not pandering for me to support her. I am all in, just to be clear.
But preparing in case democrats go that route, is just plain smart.
"One thing those numbers do show is that we, Conservatives, are outnumbered. We need candidate who can with both the right and the middle. That's why I think we'll need to nominate a woman to win in 2016.
But if Cruz gets the nomination, I'm in."
26 posted on Sat Feb 21 2015 16:03:45 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by TwelveOfTwenty (See my home page for some of my answers to the left's talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
But Sarah Palin number one is not interested in running for President, would likely be more polarizing than Hillary Clinton and just does not come across to the average peon voter like Carly Fiorina does. I have to tell you her speech was really really good. and the follow up Q&A with her was very good also.
Even though I’m a woman, I guess I’m a “chauvinist,” because I want a strong, conservative MAN as President, NOT a woman, ever. Sorry, that’s just me (and the Bible that prescribes men to be the leaders, a few exceptions notwithstanding).
I understand you’re for Palin. That isn’t pandering.
But you said you also think we’re going to need a female candidate.
That’s pandering.
My concern is that I hope Cruz doesn’t wait too late to announce. You’re right, Scott Walker is getting all the attention right now, and I could vote for him if he’s the nominee. But I much prefer Ted.
I’m not a political expert, though. Maybe he knows exactly what he’s doing and will announce his run at just the right time.
Yes, I think we'll need a woman to win. An opinion. Last time I checked, we were entitled to them. That doesn't mean I'm not going support male candidates, and I'm not going to stoop to the low of attacking them including Cruz just to win a debate with you.
That's pretty much how I see it. I prefer a male president. There are some exceptions, as you say, but overall I feel the male temperament is more suited to leadership.
Apparently that's a shocking opinion to have these days.
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.