Posted on 11/27/2006 12:53:00 PM PST by Keyes2000mt
Felicia Benamon, in writing her weekly internet syndicated column declared, "No sooner had the 2006 Mid-Term elections ended, Democrat and Republican Presidential hopefuls lined up to announce their intentions of running for President in 2008. And so, the race is on. But we are barely over the last election and are looking to another? The politicking never ends! I need a break already!"
She expresses the thoughts of many Americans. She is nonetheless wrong. If her advice is followed, the results will be another unsatisfactory election with conservatives dazed by the speed at which the Republican nomination went to a Romney, a McCain, or a Giuliani. Edmund Burke intoned that, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." While there's understandable weariness with campaign ads and constants politics, conservatives need to get over it and fast before another presidential nominating process slips away.
You have a very short window in which to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. It was not too long ago that candidates could wait until late the year before the election to announce their candidacy. Bill Clinton didn't announce until November, 1991. The Presidential Primaries were a long process. Ronald Reagan didn't get his first primary win during his 1976 challenge to Gerald Ford until May.
Welcome to the 21st Century. We've compressed the Presidential primary schedule to a period that runs from mid January to mid March. It requires countless millions to run a successful campaign.
This is not empty speculation. It is fact. If you wait until early 2008 to begin paying attention, and you'll have waited too long. America's presidential candidates are already raising money and out campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. Political consultants are jockeying for positions, while party leaders in the various states hope to play kingmaker. They want the book deal, the political appointment, and the big rewards that come with backing a winning candidate.
What about protecting traditional values, reforming government, limiting the size and scope of government, and all those other issues conservatives care about? It's at the back of their mind. This is a horse race and they want to ride the winning horse to further their own careers. If conservatives don't pay attention, don't get involved, and don't begin a search for candidates worthy of their support, it will be too late when Conservatives decide to pay attention.
The only way grassroots conservatives affect this process is by getting involved early, sending off small donations to their favored candidates, and getting the word out for their favored candidates. The more complacent conservatives are, the less their influence will matter in 2008.
Enjoy Christmas and New Years, but if early next year, the level of interest from conservatives in the 2008 presidential elections doesn't begin to match up with the interest of career politicians and their aspiring sycophants, don't be surprised if we end up with a nominee who doesn't share our values and will take America down the wrong road.
Lookit folks, we need to get behind SOMEBODY soon. Because the way it looks right now the nomination is gonna be decided by the MSM.
And that means McCain.
We need a candidate, and we need one soon.
I hate to say this, but perhaps we should abandon the presidential primary and go back to the time we nominated by convention. The result would be the same more than likely, but it would take considerably less money.
barbra ann
How about these potential matchups?
Giuliani/Hunter
or my personal favorite:
Giuliani/Steele
now THAT would be fun......and conservatives would fare quite nicely
I'm going to write in my own name. I encourage you all to do the same. Anybody who votes for me will serve in my cabinet should I win.
We need a candidate, and we need one soon."
The fact is, it's already wayyyy too late. Those are our choices: Giuliani, McCain and Romney. There will be a few also rans (Brownback, Frist), but they won't have the money to even begin a serious race. The only wildcard who may appear briefly will be Newt, but he is hated by at least half here at FR, so I don't look for him to get too far. Although he will likely fare better than Brownback.
By the way, why was Keyes in Borat? Did he get snookered? Or what?
Giuliani's pro-abortion. Can't vote for that.
Romney? Could I vote for a Mormon? I don't know. I suppose it's the same prejudice issue that JFK faced as a Catholic back in 1960. I probably could vote for Romney, despite his religion. Where does he stand on life issues, specifically abortion, euthanasia and fetal stem-cell research?
McCain? Well, he's pro-life, that's good. And he's a militarist; that's good. He's pro-fetal stem cell research, which cuts against pro-life, so that's bad. Also, McCain is getting up there in years. How old will be be in 2008? Hasn't he had cancer already? Does that matter? Maybe as much as Mormonism. Certainly McCain is for amnesty for illegals.
If those are the only choices, it would have to be a choice between McCain or Romney, and I guess that would depend on where Romney stood on issues. Where DOES he stand?
All of this assumes that the Democrats will never run anybody who is unabashedly pro-life.
Oh, man, now I gotta choose between you and Echo Talon.
Depressing, isn't it?
Well, Newt is sort of hinting that Romney is the candidate of the right.
Without question, Romney is positioning himself as pro life and pro marriage (ie, not trying to promote the gay agenda).
Problem is, he was both pro gay and pro abortion as a candidate against Kennedy way back when, and also as a candidate for governor. To my knowledge he did nothing to promote homosexuality or abortion as governor, so, maybe he was a bit more conservative all along....In any event, he is saying all the right things (on those 2 issues, at least) right now.
But it is pretty sad that the best candidate of moral issues for evangelicals and orthodox Catholics is the formerly pro gay, pro choice Mormon governor of Massachusetts. Wow.
With regards to McCain, I think notwithstanding his pro life voting record, conservatives need to put him in last place. His opposition to GWB on terrorist interrogation was shameful and his contempt for the first amendment is unforgivable.
Don't know where Giuliani stands on campaign finance, but I think we can be certain that he will be tough on terrorists in detention.......
He's also a corrupt, antagonistic butt-head. You may have noted that when he ran in 2000, none of the people who had previously worked for him supported him. He's a showboat that throws everyone else under the bus.
I disagree with you on McCain being in last place based on that.
I do not vote for pro-abortion Republicans. Period.
To my mind, sticking a scissors in a baby's head is the same thing as putting an adult in a gas chamber. There is no "lesser of evils" between those positions.
McCain's campaign finance reform bill was not predicated on a desire to crush the First Amendment, but to try and reduce corruption in government. I don't think it was particularly well-thought out, but I wouldn't impute maniacal intent to him. Remember too that Romney signed a bill that would make public health insurance mandatory in Massachussetts.
I don't think his opposition on terrorist interrogation was shameful. It was principled. One can disagree with the principles he put first, but I don't think it is a shameful position to assert, in law, that America does not resort to torture, period.
If Romney has really been pro-abortion, and is now "pro-life", but won't stand up there and explain his epiphany, I can't trust him. We saw that crap with George Bush Senior, who was always pro-choice, pretended to be pro-life (without strongly disavowing his earlier position; he just said he was against abortion, "But not a nut about it".) He put Souter on the Supreme Court. McCain has always been strongly against abortion. That puts him in front of Giuliani by an absolute margin. Romney...well...if he's been pro-abortion and is "now" pro-life, without some sort of explanatory epiphany, that still puts him behind McCain, in my view. That McCain has pissed off Bush sometimes is no reason, in my eyes, to be against McCain.
It would be better if there were someone else who came foreward.
Not to mention, of course, his personal shepherding of the latest MA ''assault-weapons'' bill through the MA leg.
I don't give a warm damn about Mormonism, one way or the other. My aunt's Mormon, so who cares? But pro-abort gungrabbers who will not take a stand against the radical homos when the opportunity presents itself...need not apply.
Giuliani, McCain, Romney? None of the above. Unless Hitlery runs, in which case I will hold my nose firmly and try to vote for Rudy. Never McLame, under any circumstance; I'd sooner vote for Putin.
I can't think of anyone who is not hated by a significant number of posters here at FR.......................
Find me a candidate who breathes fire at terrorists and I will love him/her forever!!!
"Find me a candidate who breathes fire at terrorists and I will love him/her forever!!!"
Zell Miller for President!
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.