Posted on 02/13/2006 11:07:30 AM PST by areafiftyone
OMG ARE YOU KIDDING?!?! OK, NOW I'VE HEARD ENOUGH!! You run Germany the way you want, we'll take care of the USA. Thanks very much.
[Connecticut soccer moms are the key to a landslide Republican victory in 2008.
OMG ARE YOU KIDDING?!?!]
No, I am not kidding. These women can be very conservative. Their biggest criteria, however, is that they vote for a man whom they consider to be their intellectual equal. That man has to come to them and make his case. He cannot hide behind crowds who adore him. He has to come to them.
Besides the soccer mom, the Republicans finally have to try even a little bit to get the black vote.
The President steadfastly refused to even try to get black votes in 2004. Sending Rice to Philly the week before the election didn't count.
We almost lost in 2004. We were all on the edge of our seats until Ohio was called.
By the way, I think Bush had much of the Connecticut soccer mom vote in 2004.
"So long as it's Rudy or the backstabber? No thanks."
As I said to another poster, find me a good conservative alternative to Rudy or McCain who can win and I'll support them in the primary. But George Allen cannot speak, does not have command of the facts and seems completly unable to defend GOP positions against the constant onslaught of Democratic attacks. If you want to go with a guy who is befuddled when faced with Democratic boilerplate, then enjoy 8 years of Hillary Clinton in the White House.
And I see nothing "backstabbing" about John McCain. On the contrary. On the really important issues facing the country: terrorism, Iraq, taxes, the economy, eliminating pork spending, and conservative judges, he's right there with Bush and the rest of the GOP. Get out of the "Freeper group think" that tells you because McCain doesn't 100% support everything Bush does he must be disloyal. Funny even Bush came around to most of what McCain was saying on campaign finance reform and even the torture issue, though on the latter I disagreed with McCain. So is Bush a "backstabber" too?
McCain IS CFR to most here. To the rest of us he is the backstabbing bass turd that fell in with the group of 14 to cut the nuclear option off. Just about anytime you see a dagger in what passes for the spine of the GOP, McCain's hand is controlling it.
No, you wont see him get down in the mud and wrestle with Babs or Chuckie. Why bother? He's a leader who gets things done
So refuting lies with truth is "getting down into the mud?" Selling the GOP position against Democratic lies is "getting into the mud?" How can Allen hope to win if he can't deflect the oncoming Democratic assault that will be thrown at him in 2008 with unprecedented viciousness and venom? How will he win if he can't tell voters why Democrats are wrong and he's right? He can be the greatest "leader who gets things done" all day long but if he can't refute the lies and dirt that will be thrown at him in the upcoming election then he will never get a chance to prove that leadership. Like or it not, politics in this country is a hardball game now and a candidate not prepared to hit those hardballs back out of the park isn't worth a damn and won't survive for long.
People don't know George Allen like you or I or know anything of what he's done in the Senate or while governor of Virginia. If he just sits back and placidly allow Democrats to define him and distort his views, then we'll have Hillary in '08. A candidate HAS to be able to define himself and refute the lies before his opponent can define him and set a public misperception about him in the public's mind that will be very tough to uproot. That's not "getting down in the mud." It's knowing how to survive in the game of politics.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
You must be forgetting McCain's "gun-show" bills, or his "be nice to terrorists bill", and when has he taken a stance against queer marriage?
When has he been anything but wishy-washey on pro-life?
McCain has a very solid pro-life voting record according to the Right to Life organization and voted FOR the defense of marriage act in 1998. He has also spoken out against gay marriage. Is it at the top of his agenda? No. I can't say as George Allen is saying or doing much on the issue either.
But what the hell has Bush done to fight against gay marriage? I'm still waiting for that constitutional amendment he promised to get moving back in the 2004 election. Gotcha on that one didn't I?
By the way, I happen to disagree with McCain on the terrorism torture thing, but because I disagree with him on one thing doesn't mean I think he's not vote-worthy. I think Bush has been terrible on the borders and spending, but I support him anyway. Do you abandon Bush over a couple issues like you're so willing to with McCain?
Get out of the "Freeper Group Think" that McCain is an across the board liberal. Go look into his REAL record rather than what some nitwit on talk radio has told you to think about him.
Well nothing like compromising TEXAS for the soccer moms in a state with 6 electoral votes...That statement you made is just wrong on so many other levels too. Listen, I live in CT among the soccer moms - You're just incorrect.
[If you want to go with a guy who is befuddled when faced with Democratic boilerplate, then enjoy 8 years of Hillary Clinton in the White House.]
This is my main criterion as well. Except I do not support McCain for this very reason: McCain actually agreed with Democrats on calling the Swift Boat Vets liars and he agreed with them on it being supposedly wrong to question animals who need to be executed anyway.
We need to find someone who is more charismatic and popular than Rudy. I want a 50 state landslide this time. The argument on FR is between people like me who want a 50 state landslide and those who want as much as they can get as long as they can still hope to get Ohio.
By the way, Danish TV has a cool movie on the Iraq War on now.
McCain lost me when he insulted the Swift Boat Veterans (calling them liars).
Hey, Bush called the Minute Men "vigilantes." I can forgive the occassional political pandering by otherwise worthy candidates. Look, there's never going to be the perfect candidate who thinks just like us and frankly we should stop looking because it blinds us to otherwise good candidates out there. But there are candidates who will do enough good AND CAN WIN that they're worth considering and McCain is one of them.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
And at CPAC's conference this weekend McCain came in a close 2nd to Allen...McCain is highly sellable to the GOP base. And if he gets the nomination, the White House is his barring some scandal or disaster. He is imminently sellable to the "heartland" despite what Beagel says.
Precisely. A lot of people have impressive resumes, but I would not want them as president. I'm sure Hillary's resume looks impressive to some people too.
No, I'm not a liberal. I'm just trying to keep one out of the White House, i.e. Hillary. Get out of the "Freeper Group Think" about McCain and look into his real record. It's pretty conservative. And if you look at McCain Feingold, it helped the GOP enormously. If not for it, Kerry would be in the White House right now I am quite certain.
But McCain can't win precisely because he cannot take on the liberals and make them curl up into the fetal position when he debates them on TV. He agrees with them too much. :-)
You are making great posts...I like reading them...but McCain fits your own description of a poor candidate who cannot do intellectual battle with the liberals. McCain panders to the liberals.
I think actually McCain would be STRONGER on the War on Terror than Bush has been, the torture thing notwithstanding. As for the global warming thing, I think that was a moment of pandering, little more. He's no Al Gore who will make that a center-piece of his campaign. If he does, I'm done with him. But let's face it, he forgot about it the next minute after he said it.
And I will have to check about the ANWR thing, I'm not sure of that. But I also seem to remember George Allen voted against it, though I could well be wrong. But I don't think I am.
And Bush has taken positions and stands I don't like either, i.e. calling the Minutemen "Vigilantes," refusing to secure the borders and nominating Harriet Myers. But we still manage to support him because on other issues he's on the right side of things and has done a good job. I think we can cut the same slack to McCain.
Rudy will fare even worse than Bush with the African-American vote. In African-American circles, Rudy is seen as the father of police brutality.
Has he ever taken center stage as an advocate on any of these issues or does he save those appearances for the issues where is disagrees with the Bush administration?
Well I guess since McCain isn't a Supreme Court nominee, why would he "take center stage" on such issues? What has Dimwit Allen done to take "centerstage" on these issues? Oh, and I bet you support Bush...where's the gay marriage constitutional amendment he promised? But I guess it's only McCain who's allowed not to be 100% like you at the risk of losing any ability to find other things to valuable in his leadership.
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.