I AM A HALEY GARBOUR PARTISAN.....
PUT A BULLDOG IN THE WHITEHOUSE!
Posted on 09/22/2005 4:27:49 AM PDT by WKB
Those who try and attract people into voting for third parties are worse than fools. Like it or not.
He said he'd sit out the election "or" vote thrid party if Guiliani is our nominee. Not to worry, it won't be Guiliani anyway.
That weak defense sounds almost Clintonian...I didn't jump all over you...I suggested that you could just as easily, and more effectively, make you point without resorting to juvenile name calling...I think you know it also...so I expect better of you the next time out...
"Then you are a fool."
How tacky of you.
You should apologize to WKB.
Rest assured...he is anything BUT a fool.
Should Rudy be the nonimee, I will stay home or vote third party, too.
Come to think of it, if Rudy is the nominee, a third party might just have
it's best chance to win....ever.
I am not defending anything merely affirming my right to call a spade a spade. Anyone can see that was not personal since it is a contingent statement applicable to any who take such a stance.
And what do YOU call someone who cuts off his nose to spit his face? The fount of wisdom?
Very well put. May I add, that women who say they need this elusive "perfect environment" would not succeed in it, even if said environment were achievable?
I agree with you. Those whom you describe can only blame others for failing to follow instructions. They are not happy under any circumstances.
I AM A HALEY GARBOUR PARTISAN.....
PUT A BULLDOG IN THE WHITEHOUSE!
I wouldn't be rude, that's for sure.
So, what do YOU call a party who would nominate a social lib?
Are you a "my party, right or wrong" person?
Honestly, I am not worried about this.
He won't be the nominee.
Once his views become well known, I'm confident he won't win the South.
FYI..I happen to agree with your basic premise..the idea of sitting out, or voting for a third party, in a Hillary v Rudy 2008 race for the WH, to be smacks of a loss of sanity, though a principled loss, to be sure..and there are many ehre who have that viewpoint..Some you may be able to convince to reconsider, others are zealous purists..and we do need those..they are the conscious of the conservative movement...but we must keep them within the Republican tent..as one who cut his political eyeteeth in 1964 handing out..or trying to.. Goldwater literature in the Bronx..not an easy thing to do..we didn't go off and hide...we took back the party..
As much as I loathe..the Clinton's. Most of the poli-ticks in Washington are narcistic.....The Clinton's just out-do the other gob'ment critters at the same game.
There is a lot of narcissism in DC that's true. But in varying extremes. To the point that it is painful for someone to laugh at himself or herself, that would be extreme.
Narcissism is a form of control freakishness.
Then put that in the context as to which party seeks to control our every behavior and it will look a little different than just a sweeping "everybody has a problem" view.
The beauty of the US is that the voters are usually pretty adept at asking "who do you think you are?!?"
Which makes it harder for the total control types.
IMHO.
My phrasing and tact can always be improved but, frankly, I have little patience with the 3d party crowd and do like antagonizing them. In fact, that is one of the reasons I adopted my screename.
I have no problem with 3d parties endorsing Republican or conservative candidates when the opponents are clearly clueless Leftists such as Senator Buckley's party in NY decades ago, the Conservative Party. That way they can pursue their principles without damaging conservativism. But most are not intelligent enough for that tack.
I am not an advocate for Guiliani but in a contest between him and Hillary it would be the utmost folly not to support him. The principal point of the question is whether the candidate will maintain National Security or adopt policies of Treason. There is no doubt in my mind that the former would be the policy of Rudi while the latter would be the policy of Mrs. Abomination. Surely you would agree with that?
to elaborate on our discussion, as GOP dominance in the Congress becomes more entrenched..(IMHO..at least for the next two decades) I think we will see the GOP caucus becomign far more conservative..as the primaries become the way to power...the Toomey/Spector contest hopefully will be the last we see of that type..
My dream is that the RAT party destroy itself through sheer lunacy. THEN the GOP can be remade or even split if necessary. But only after such an event should third parties even be considered.
My personal pick, Allen and Watts
No way that Allen puts Watts on his ticket...why? Watt does not add any balance regionally to the ticket. Allen will get the nomination (sorry Frist) but the Vice-Presidential pick will go to either Mitt Romney (MA), Rick Santorum (PA), or Condoleezza Rice (CA)...how about Jeb Bush (FL) or Rick Perry (TX)?
Both Clintons understand that their audience is the media. Not the political establishment. And not the American people.
Every event, every statement is addressed to the media and solely to the media. They play to the media because they realize that the media determines what the public (and, thus, the political establishment) get to see.
Schmoozing the media for thirty minutes can get you a thirteen second sound bite embedded in the evening news, surrounded by thirty seconds of positive commentary.
Strangely, the media delights in being "used". And the Clintons are among the very best "users" in history...
Jeb Bush definatly won't be on the ticket, in fact he gets enraged and hostile when its even mentioned now.
I can't see Allen picking Romney or Rice.
The reason I thought Watts was that him and Allen are close personal friends, and it can also help bring some kind of black votes (maybe a couple of points) and good publicity.
Allen and Watts, outside of politics seem to be pretty close and are very good friends and Watts has had success as a politician. Chemistry may be somewhat of a factor.
I don't see Allen picking anyone he doesn't know well or is farmiliar enough with on a personal level.
Allen is also making strong overtures towards social conservatives, so its almost a guarantee he won't pick someone who is pro-abortion.
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.