Posted on 02/13/2006 11:07:30 AM PST by areafiftyone
The idea that McCain supporters are attacking other candidates personally just cracks me up; that guy is a walking time bomb and we all know it.
And I've never seen any Rudy supporters on here.........LOL.
There are a few, although there are a lot of mccainiacs and rudy fans on Redstate.com. Its kind of strange really, a lot of Allen bashing at that website yet when they ran their little presidential preference poll Allen won out. Lol, of course when that happened they explained it away as just luck/aberration. Its interesting although there are alot of allen supporters, they don't seem to jump in and post as often as the allen bashers.
You are right though, i love the irony from the mccain supporters. I've noticed some of them pumping the, we can't run allen, senators never win(lol..). Also the oh we can't run allen, nobody knows him he'll never get anywhere, he lacks star power/etc. If hes a nobody with no power, why do the mccainiacs seem so intent on targetting him?
The allen haters also forget one big thing that will help give allen a big boost, come primary time 2008 rush will not overtly push for him but will probably drop hints and nudge people his way. Although everybody who listens to his show knows who he's voting for. Most of rush's audience votes in the primary too...
Nope. Tom Coburn.
I dunno, if the marionette strings fit...
Honestly, I haven't seen the guy on TV and wouldn't pick him out of a lineup. He doesn't look at all like Howdy-Doody here, either. Right now he's the most likely candidate of the bunch. I do wonder how we're going to elect a conservative if it ISN'T Allen, with no others seeming to be on the campaign trail. I just can't get past this suspicion that Allen has an African-American in the timber assemblage somewhere.
Polls show Rudy beating McCain in the primaries with Allen 20 points behind Rudy in the south.
Although I did not agree at all with MikeA's support for McCain, MikeA was mainly trying to say that he wanted a candidate who could argue against liberalism in such a way that would "leave liberal debaters on the floor in the fetal position."
So that makes MikeA the opposite of a liberal. He wouldn't have said that if he were a closet liberal.
He wouldn't be going after Allen if the thought Allen was effective against liberals.
If you take the transcript above, Allen made some good answers to outrageous leftist comments like Hillary's "nothing to fear but fear itself" comment.
But he should have directly attacked Hillary for using that comment and labeled her a liberal in so many words for saying it. He is like the current Bush in that regard....calmly putting forth the conservative viewpoint as if it is just another viewpoint.
I want someone who ridicules the left on every point they make, while implying that his viewpoint is the ONLY logical viewpoint for adults and not just another viewpoint. You give uneducated young people an inch and they take a mile. You let them believe they should make a reasoned choice between what Allen just said or what Clinton just said...and they might choose Clinton. Why? Because uneducated people don't actually LISTEN to the arguments. They take in only the TONE. If Allen is being respectful to Clinton...it reinforces their support for Clinton because, in doing so, he is saying her comments are worthy of respect...so they don't have to judge the content.
But if Allen at least started his answer to Clinton with a "She's being such a liberal when she pretends that fear of another 9-11 isn't justified"...he is immediately telling the sleepy uneducated viewers to wake up and smell the roses.
Democrat voters are the poor and uneducated. You win them with populist rhetoric, not with reasoned speech. We need someone who knows how to play the game that the Dems play. Who knows how to use verbal jujutsu to take them down when they use PREDICTABLE leftist comments.
One thing the left is on the War in Iraq is PREDICTABLE. A good Rep politician needs to be ready with a dozen great takedowns....and unscripted when necessary.
The way the Democrats get votes is that they get ornery and angry as if they are battling stupidity and injustice.
Answering them with calm, adult arguments while implying that they have a right to their opinion...is just plain dumb. You have to ridicule them directly for what they say, not talk past them.
Yes, I am in Denmark now. I just had a great Danish breakfast including scrambled eggs, fresh tomatoes, yoghurt and, of course, fresh danish.
I am not so upset that they showed "Over There" on TV here, so much as they would be showing that program on TV in the Middle East. This makes me wonder why the producers are allowed to go free without fear of facing justice.
About my ability to convert liberals...yes, I would be effective in advising someone's campaign. The idea that it would be a waste of time to go to France to argue with leftist professors at the Sorbonne...is precisely the wrong attitude. I would advise against this attitude on day one.
We cannot continue to win by talking past the left. You cannot convert liberals to your side without looking them in the eyes and saying "you can't be serious believing all that crap can you? Would you like to sit down to sort this out?"
I would give seminars in major cities called "Right vs Left Wing: Which is really for you" and present a historical perspective on the history of right vs left.
George Bush never does that to liberals. He doesn't sit down with "Rolling Stone" magazine (even though he is part of that generation) and give a long interview on why people shouldn't be liberals anymore or even offer perspective on the right/left history. I don't see George Allen doing this either.
Of course, one could argue effectively that conservative politicians shouldn't even recognize left wing media like "Rolling Stone" especially when an interview in that magazine could help them stay afloat financially.
Take your finger off the mouse.
On the picture she share with Cris Mathews from hard ball, The last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it.
Irish,
I'll weigh in here. Having lived in NYC for a number of years (difficult as a Red Sox fan...go Mets), I like Rudi. He will always have a special place in America's hearts as a result of his handling the aftermath of 9/11..but,
1. He has never held any office higher than Mayor of NYC.
2. He appears to be afraid to run for either Governor or Senator.
3. His position on a number of hot button Republican issues are all wrong.
4. I don't think he has the fire in the belly to run for President.
Roy
And I seem to recall that 2004 was not a landslide. Why will it be the key to a landslide in 2008?
[And I seem to recall that 2004 was not a landslide. Why will it be the key to a landslide in 2008?]
I don't know what you mean. I have been saying that 2004 was not a landslide because we had a president who never used the word "liberal" and who acted like he'd never posted on a left wing blog (or FR for that matter) and who refused to speak before hostile crowds or go on black TV. He thanked John Kerry for his military service which only solidified Kerry's supposed military 'credentials'. Even with Cindy Sheehan (after the election)...I was expecting him to deflate her balloon when it got really big...but he allowed 40% of the population to get away with thinking he really was too scared to face her.
We can find someone other than Rudy, but I do think Rudy has the fire in him to run for the WH and leave a trail of liberals lying on the floor in the fetal position behind him...grasping for ways to explain their ideology.
We should judge our next candidate by the number of times he or she says "liberals" per week. Bush and Allen have a Zero "liberals" factor. That is bad. Rush calls liberals liberals 100 times per week. That gives him a factor of 100.
We need someone with a factor of 10-20 mentions per week.
See your post#140 and then your subsequent post which indicated that Bush won the CT soccer Mom vote. Just wanted to understand how the two reconcile.
Here is an article on the subject
Whereas an American man can go on Match.com and meet any American woman as a stranger...this perverse new law apparently makes it so he cannot be introduced to a foreign woman without submitting all kinds of forms regarding not having any police records, etc.
The privacy take-away of this is more outrageous than I have ever known.
If Bush signed this, then I am of the opposite ideology.
1) Exterminating terrorists via a Phoenix Program is OK with me. Wiretap all international calls as well. No problem.
2) The Patriot Act sounds OK with me. I ooze contempt whenever I hear some leftist jerk say that the Republicans are taking people's rights away...without saying exactly how a non-terrorist would be inconvenienced.
3) But if my Republican President just took away my right as a male to be introduced to a foreign woman in a foreign country without filling out US government paperwork to be submitted to her beforheand...
no wonder I don't even live in the USA anymore.
The law was pushed by Washington State Democrats.
And then a Republican President sells single males down the drain by inviting those Democrats to the White House for the signing?
I just found out about this now. It means neither political party in the USA is anything to care about. I'd spit on both of them.
This is outrageous on a scale similar to 9-11 to me.
If I were still a soldier, I'd quit. No need to fight for a country that takes men's rights away gleefully.
It is an outrage and American men are just taking it.
Dat dair is one angrey broad; no wat ah meen?
I've got the copies to prove your ignorance.
In other venues where there are not strict time limits a different approach can be taken.
"The Nation" is basically DU cleaned up for print publication.
Howdy ol' friend...I'm with you, Allen would make a damned good POTUS.
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.