Posted on 11/08/2006 6:15:22 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
I understand your points. However, my main point is that the republicans lost independent voters because they were not on average any more "conservative" than the democrats that ran against them.
Well put.
I didn't make my point clear. I'm sure the MSM polls accurately reflect what people tell the poll-takers they want. My point is that most peope say they want McCain, Giuliani, etc., because these are the only names they know. The MSM doesn't tell people about the existence of anyone except MSM-preferred candidates. It's only us political junkies who even know about anyone else.
By the same token, Talent and Allen didn't deserve to be "fired" and replaced by the vapid empty-headed ditzy blond whose only item on the agenda was "change" (while never revealing information about her husband's overshore companies and their tax status) or a turn-coat Republican whose greatest contribution to society has been a novel involving incestuous pornography. The media has created the "rules" of this double-standard and unless we control the media, those are the standards by which we will have to play.
Sorry, I don't know anything about Mathias!
Sauerbrey - a virtual unknown - almost WON gov being hard-a$$ed. As some point out, her next bid against same (incumbent) Dem was a *little* "softer" and she got a few less % points. It was a virtual dead heat the 1st time - in a really liberal state. She didn't lose much by going softer, but she lost bigger than she had before.
This kind of neck&neck race has really only been going on in MD since Sauerbrey won the primary. Before it was virtually always 75% to the Dems. Now there's hope - heck, next time out we got the 1st Repub in decades for gov! Yes Ehrlich and Steele are more mod, but I think maybe toughies like Sauerbrey really made Repub's hopeful.
Billy Bob isn't as popular as his groupies make us all think. He managed to win 2 elections with only 42%, thanks to a 3rd party that was very popular, considering. Most of those 3rds would've been conservative.
Like most issues, the issue of how our troops should combat terrorism (and where) is not one with only one answer. It is simply not the case that those who don't like the 'how' or the 'where' - or think there are better 'hows' and 'wheres' - are telling the troops to 'go to hell.' Not agreeing with one view of 'how' and 'where' is not equal to saying 'not at all' and 'nowhere.' And no matter how many times you say it, no one - NO ONE - is saying 'not at all' or 'nowhere.'
The troops don't decide 'how' and 'where' - politicians do. And politicians are often wrong.
Actually all it demonstrates is that Repubs are more "diverse" and "open-minded" than the lock-step monolithic Dems, ironically since that's what they tout about themselves.
I contemplate it. But doubt it.
Would be more believable with HILLARY as Speaker. The Clintons are truly capable of ANYthing.
We had a third party curse too.......the MSM.
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The media are among his groupies.
Gotcha! I think.
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.