Posted on 02/11/2007 6:00:59 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
It boggles the mind.
First of all, it's only a few months after the 2006 elections ended, and we're already on the move towards the 2008 elections. I'm sorry, but doesn't Bush have two years left? A lot can change until then.
Secondly, let's look at some of the current frontrunners for the GOP.
Mitt Romney. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani.
Romney has flip-flopped on positions many times, so I wouldn't give him my vote. John McCain, despite his strong conservative rating from the ACU (lifetime of 83), he is partially responsibility for the travesty of McCain-Feingold, aka CFR. He is also a supporter of amnesty. Sorry.
Giuliani, although strong on national defense, is a devout Leftist. Pro-abortion. Pro-gun control. Pro-homosexual rights. He embraces illegal immigration. It stuns me that he has as large a following on Free Republic as he does.
There are far better candidates out there. Tom Tancredo (lifetime rating of 99). Sam Brownback (lifetime rating of 95). Duncan Hunter (lifetime rating of 92).
So why?
Why are so many going to hold their noses and compromise their beliefs? Name recognition? Why? It bewilders me.
We have Pro-Life candidates in Hunter, Brownback, and Tancredo. We have anti-illegal immigration and Pro-border control candidates in Hunter and Tancredo (this is where Brownback slips up; support for a guest worker program? Voted yes on allowing illegals access to Social Security? No thanks.). We have pro-second amendment candidates in all three (NRA gave Hunter an A+, and both Brownback and Tancredo an A). All three are supportive of the War on Terror.
So please. Tell me. Why not vote for any of these three (particularly Tancredo and Hunter; Brownback's position on immigration irks me)? Why not?
Who cares about name recognition at this point? It's 2007. November 2008 is a long way away. A lot can change between now and then.
I refuse to compromise on MY beliefs in this matter. I will not vote for a candidate who is socially no different from the socialists on the Left. Hanging up your hat at this point is akin to giving up.
Don't.
Vote for Hunter. Vote for Tancredo. Get the word out.
Your precious social issues mean squat as long as government expands, liberal programs expand, and taxes increase.
I am not going to omit the Second Amendment... Clintong or Julie-Annie? Neither, there isn't one dime's worth of difference...
The Second Amendment is not a social issue...
I found this one:
http://www.angelfire.com/blog/gop2008/scoreboard.html
Neither is property rights, a good solid basis for the right to life. But whatever. When most of the sheeple are actually happy to be the junior partner in their own life behind the federal and state government and think it's cool to get stuff taken from people that they envy, things don't look good.
Abortion existed before Giuliani
How about not infringing upon a law-abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment rights?
20,000+ gun control laws, some written by Congressional Republicans, preceded Giuliani. Congressional Republicans let stand big city gun bans rather than taking the matter to the Supremes
How about not running a virtual POLICE-STATE (nyc) and cooking the crime books in order to ahcieve the appearance of a lower crime rate?
I don't give a damn about the rights of hustling squee-gee men, sheisty homeless bums, pimps and hos, and gangsta thugs
How about not running a virtual welfare state and redistibuting citizens tax dollars to the illegal aliens you allow into our midst?
Giuliani cut welfare rolls, which declined faster than the national average. Most of the illegals in NYC weren't Mexican criminals who sneaked over the border
How about not using social engineering to help promote the homosexual agenda?
How about worrying about your life instead of what two guys are doing in the privacy of their own home
Please tell me what did conservatives in Congress do about all those gun control laws. Rudy is not responsible for gun control.
If the mysterious "they" have convinced you and a lot of others around here that congressional districts of 750,000/1,000,000 don't matter, that 435 is a number carved in stone, then it really doesn't matter because the battle is already lost to the oligarchy.
There's nothing wrong with this country that repeal of the 17th Amendment and an additional 3,565 congressmen wouldn't cure. We have the tech tools now so that we don't even need Washington as the "center" of gub'mint anymore, except as a national symbol for tourists.
Any way, I think it does matter. The House was meant to be close to the people and even an old blind guy like me can see how the size of districts, the gerrymandering and rigging has exploded exponentially over the years since Congress capped their own number, a number they can change at will.
I don't believe that Giuliani will nominate constructionists.
He has expressed admiration of Ginsburg.
There isn't a single good reason for me to vote for him, and
a myriad of reasons I shouldn't.
In the general election, if your perfect candidate is there, great! You did a good job and are in an enviable position. But if your candidate didn't make it, vote for the best candidate in the race! That may mean choosing between the candidate you agree with 60% of the time and the one you agree with 10% of the time.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
First all, the three leaders are there only because the leftist media wants them to be there. They will ignore the true conservatives because it fits their agenda. It's a win-win to elect a socialist no matter what party they belong to.
Before the primaries, work for a true conservative who best fits your ideals. Donate money, work for them and tell your friends. We still have a little less than two years to elect someone who can save this country.
Your any candidate with enough effort can become a major candidate almost overnight does not mean that a Kucinich, Hunter, Tancredo or Sharpton can be nominated, much less elected. "Effort" surely must = a combination of money, name recognition, organization, constituency, message, etc.-- things that do not materialize "overnight" or in the case of some, (Kucinich or Frist for example) ever.
You're blaming others for Gingrich's "personal destruction"?
I loved Gingrich until I realized he was a vile excuse for a human being. The way he treated his wife was unforgiveable.
Actually, there are two good reasons to vote for him: Hillary Clinton.
What if I don't want to vote based on fear?
Know that when you vote for Cthulu, he WILL eat your soul. But it will be towards the end, after he eats his opponents.
Snarky question ahoy.
Why do you do this Lord of the Rings comparison on so many threads?
The final movie came out four years ago, which would render this pop culture reference something less than timely.
Or, as my debate coach would have pegged it, interesting but irrelevant.
Who does? If you really think that wasting your vote on a candidate who has absolutely no chance is being fearless (or wise), then feel free to join those Perot voters who boldly stood up and were counted ... for Bill Clinton.
One needn't fear Hillary or any candidate in order to recognize that a less than ideal victory is preferable to a glorious defeat.
Better four years of Hillary than eight years of a RINO and/or another Democratic. But, it won't have to come to that if conservatives rally around a true conservative candidate.
McCain and Giuliani were being forced on us in the same way that Obama is being forced on the nation. Conservatives need to realize the popularity of both is an illusion presented by the drive-by media.
What if I don't agree with any of the premises in your argument?
I think those Perot voters were counted for Perot, not Clinton.
How do you know that having the Lizard Queen as empress would be worse than having Rudi? Maybe the Congress would fight her and nothing would get done. And I also believe the decline and fall of the American democracy (All hail the great god Democracy!) is pretty much inevitable. The republic is already dead.
It doesn't really matter, because no matter how much I know Cthulu could beat Her Scaliness, we will have a reptilesbian overlordess.
So the really popular, non-illusion candidates would be ... ?
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.