Republicans 2008: Giuliani 34%, McCain 18%

I'm sorry to learn that you seem to think this is all about me.

And, yes, I did read your entire post. And of course I do agree that an electable conservative would be better than an electable liberal. I don't know what led you to believe otherwise.

That said, if you read my entire post, you did make the comment I quoted to begin my reply, did you not?

This one: If the ansswer to "beating Hillary" is to pick a liberal, why bother? We will never out liberal the liberals, and if we try and are successful, exactly what will we have accomplished?

As far as I know, it's acceptable practice here to respond to one among many points made by a poster.

Morever, besides extolling Thompson, you only made one point: the primary political analysis you offered in your post was, in fact, the one quote I replied to. Responding to that one point is cause for offense?

As for saying "here we go again," my point was that you were not the first---rather you were one among many---who took the position, to use your words, that "If the ansswer to "beating Hillary" is to pick a liberal, why bother? We will never out liberal the liberals, and if we try and are successful, exactly what will we have accomplished?

I don't think it's uncivil to point out that a person is making an argument that already has been the subject of much debate. I think you realize that the comments posted here are not only to the poster, but to the readers of the thread at large. But, again, if that seemed harsh to you, that was not my intent and I apologize.

All that said, on the issues: what are your thoughts on why some view the point you made in this quote---If the ansswer to "beating Hillary" is to pick a liberal, why bother? We will never out liberal the liberals, and if we try and are successful, exactly what will we have accomplished?---as the Dr. Kevorkian solution for the nation?

In my previous posts, I provided some links to posts that further explain where I'm coming from on this, if you're interested. BTW, if I had thought that you were "hopelessly slow," I would not have bothered to attempt to engage you in debate. But, if that offended you, I apologize for that as well.

Yep, it reminds me of this poor lady who called into some radio show all exasperated. I can't even remember the host -- I think it was a sub for Laura Ingraham. Anyway, she was all upset about the Murtha/Pelosi attempts to slow-bleed our military in Iraq. She said something like, "How can we get the message out that that is not what "we" wanted. Congress doesn't understand. They think Republicans lost because we're against the war. But "we" stayed home because we were mad about the borders and blah...blahh....blahhhh..."

I thought to myself, as Rush would say, "HELLS BELLS!" What did you think was gonna happen, lady? You may not grasp this, but the WINNING party gets to call the shots. If you think you were gonna "send a message" and accomplish anything, you are sadly mistaken. Now sit back and enjoy the leadership you elected.

I had a similar reaction to a rant by Hannity the other day. He was all upset because we aren't getting what we want on immigration. He complained that "we" demanded all these things and the republicans promised them in order to get the conservative vote and now they aren't delivering. Well, HULLO, Sean. You guys keep telling us that the "conservative" vote didn't turn out. As a matter of fact, the most conservative candidates on the immigration issue -- Hayworth and Santorum -- LOST! So what did you expect? Sheesh!

"Staying home" NEVER works as intended!

On the other hand, it's like a boomerang. It seems to come back and bite cha just exactly where you thought you were "sending a message," "punishing the party," "showing them," "making them crawl back to you," etc. etc. etc.

That's why I've been so exercised on these threads against the whole concept of taking one's marbles and going home.

I have no illusions about convincing those who already announce they will "stay home" if they don't get blah and blah and blah, but I do think there are lots of people mulling this and it's helpful to debate it for that reason.

As for your story on the Hannity rant---yeah. The thing is, people seem to forget that politics is a process of give and take. I can't believe someone who actually stayed home would even have the nerve to call a show and complain---to my mind, if you don't even vote, you should STHU for the next four years!

Margin of error is 5% (large error)
Poll was taken of registered Republicans, not those likely to vote (erroneous population)
This is March 2007. The primary is in February 2008. (meaningless early poll result).

This rates a big ***yawn***

Yeah -- That is what amazes me. I'm not surprised that there were people who sat home to "send a message". I am surprised that they are surprised it didn't work. I just hope they "get it" before the next election.

They don't seem to have gotten it yet. There're still around here bloviating about how they'll REALLY show the Republican Party this time.

Well, according to one poll I recently read of, 57% of self-identified conservatives support Rudy. So, your argument is with the majority of conservatives.