Posted on 08/10/2007 8:47:56 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Basically, the War on Terrorism is the deciding factor there.
I won’t vote for Rudy Giuliani in the primary, but I wouldn’t switch to vote against him if he were nominated. He did a fine job as mayor of NY. I disagree with him on quite a few social issues, and some fiscal issues (he is a tax cutter, which is good ... but a fairly free spender). However, I rarely disagree with Giuliani on foreign affairs (which will likely be the deciding factor in my vote) or homeland security/ criminal justice (FISA, PATRIOT Act, etc) issues.
I’d much rather have someone I’m more socially and fiscally in-sync with as the nominee, though ... Thompson, Hunter, Romney and Huckabee would be my top four (probaby in that order). Personally - I’d like to see Rudy Giuliani as Secretary of Homeland Security in the upcoming Fred Thompson administration.
Ron Paul is pretty much the opposite. I agree with him on some or most social and fiscal issues ... but his foreign policy is a complete catastrophe, and his record on homeland security isn’t much better. This is a deal breaker for me - if he is nominated, I’m out. Newt Gingrich for third party, baby.
If someone is going to surrender in the War on Terror, cripple homeland security, and run the country into the ground - I’d rather they have a (D) beside their name so we don’t get blamed for it.
H
“upcoming Fred Thompson administration”
I like your style...
He's right. We have to insist on someone who espouses the belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility first and foremost, but demanding all or nothing off of the conservative menu is stupid.
That is a great observation. I think it has a lot to do with seeing the big picture and having an optimistic vision for the future. While every step one takes or decision one makes may not be the most conservative one at the time, it can be leading in the right direction rather than two steps backward or to the left (if you know what I mean.)
“I never advocated abandoning working within the party to change it. I wouldn’t ever advocate that.
When a party receives the conservative vote regardless of the candidate, do you think that makes it more or less likely that the party will run a genuine small government conservative?”
The correct course for anyone who even considers “less likey” would be to threaten to withhold the support, and threats mean nothing with no intention to carry them out.
I vote for the primary candidate who most closely reflects my views. If they go ahead and nominate someone who isn’t strong on the Bill of Rights and smaller, less intrusive government, that candidate does not receive my vote. So I both work within the party and carry out my threat to not vote for big government authoritarians. See?
>> Because a liberal reminds Republicans that conservatives are their base. It could be argued that the Clintons were the best commercial for the conservative wing of the Republican party.
George W. Bush was the Republican nominee, and President, that directly followed the Clinton Administration ... the supposed “commercial for the Republican Party” ... and Bush didn’t even win by all that much. Many ideological purists on this site have claimed that Bush is the textbook definition of a pragmatic sellout, a RINO, etc.
That doesn’t square with your contention that a liberal President Gore would’ve taught Republicans a lesson about the base. A liberal President Clinton was followed by Bush, who you’d likely contend isn’t a real conservative.
>> The Republican revolution was a flood of genuine conservatives taking office. What preceded that flood?
Agreed. But, that “flood” was preceded by 40 YEARS of Democratic control of the House of Representatives (the last time Republicans had controlled the House was 1954). Sometimes losing isn’t a lesson for anyone ... its just losing.
So, you’re saying you’d have been FINE with President Gore since 2000 ... because it would’ve taught the Republicans a lesson, right? Nevermind what it’d have done to the country, the Supreme Court, the War on Terrorism, the budget, the tax rate, the economy, etc.
Let’s teach the nasty RINOs a lesson - the nation be damned. I still fail to see the value, to the conservative movement, of losing elections (or nominating unelectable candidates). Elections have consequences ... we’d be in much worse shape now had you gotten your way in 2000.
H
>>> So, you’re saying you’d have been FINE with President Gore since 2000 ...
>> Absolutely not. I’m not fine with a President who spends like Bush, either.
Nominating an unelectable candidate would’ve basically gotten Al Gore elected in 2000 - which is precisely why electability matters.
As far as I know, Christ is not running in this election. All candidates, Republican and Democrat, WILL have imperfections, ideological and otherwise. In an election with Thompson, Romney or Giuliani VS. Clinton, Obama, or Edwards (probably Clinton) ... there are no perfect candidates, but some are more acceptable than others.
What would be unacceptable, at least to my conscience, would be in ANY WAY contributing to the election of Hillary Clinton (or Obama or Edwards) by withholding my vote from a candidate (Thompson, Romney or Giuliani) who may be ideologically imperfect, but is unquestionably FAR better for future of the country than the alternative.
H
Kerry Cheney/Haliburton Ad Proven FalseI am very interested to know what people think on this subject.
Posted by BobbyK to Darkwolf377
On News/Activism 10/03/2004 7:21:03 PM CDT · 4 of 51
Shame on them little fact checkers.
Mmmmmm Kaaaaaaay.
>> We’re driving off the cliff. Would you take chance at hitting the brake and actually stopping the car, or would you rather just let off the accelerator and go off the cliff at thirty miles an hour instead of fifty? I pick hit the brake. Enough is enough. Let’s nominate a conservative this time.
Its a cute analogy ... but completely nonsensical.
(1) We’re not driving off a cliff. People have been saying this for decades ... yet life continues to improve in the United States. We’re wealthier than we’ve ever been, we’re growing MORE religious as a nation, and life for Americans is generally good.
After virtual complete liberal rule from 1930 to 1980, we’ve had 28 years of relatively conservative leadership. Bill Clinton, the most liberal President since 1980, was probably more conservative than Richard Nixon, the most conservative President from 1963 to 1980. Liberalism is on the run (to such an extent that they won’t even CALL themselves liberal anymore). Taxes are lower, jobs are higher, the economy is booming, the welfare state is diminishing, the media is increasingly conservative (though there are still stalwarts), and we’ve finally taken back the Supreme Court.
We’ve survived totalitariansim, fascism, Naziism and Communism - and we will survive Islamic Radicalism. We’ve survived the Great Depression, World Wars I and II, Feminists, homegrown Commies, Hippies, Peaceniks, the Black Panthers, Roe v. Wade, Johnson’s Welfare State, Roosevelt’s Nanny State, Clinton’s Pantsless State, the assassination of the Kennedys and MLK, the attack on the WTC, the resignation of President Nixon, and the entire useless Presidency of Jimmy Carter.
And, yet, we’re still the strongest nation on the planet - and THE reigning model of conservative values which serves a living proof of the failure of liberalism.
There are problems, to be sure - many problems. But, generally speaking, we’re not driving off a cliff. We’re thriving.
(2) Even if your “driving off a cliff” analogy were accurate, seeking to nominate an unelectable candidate will not “hit the brakes” ... it will continue us toward the cliff at the fastest possible pace.
Instead of “slowing”, you’re picking AIM for the brake, but miss completely ... a useless gesture that only serves to make you feel better, but will ultimately do nothing to fix any problems we might have (which, incidentally, is a central theme of liberalism ... sure, it won’t work, but it makes me feel better).
By definition, an unelectable candidate will lose - embarrassingly. Such a loss could cripple the conservative movement ... just as the Jimmy Carter catastophe in 1980 killed the liberal movement (to this day), and the trouncing of Barry Goldwater sent conservatives underground from 1964 to 1980.
(3) We will nominate a conservative, just as we have for the past 28 years ... Reagan, Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-41, Dole, Bush-43, Bush-43. Of course, Bush-41 didn’t turn out as well as he should have ... he raised taxes, and LOST in 1992 because of it. Dole was weak, but conservative. Bush-43 is generally conservative, but often strays from fiscal conservatism.
And - since we’ve started nomination actual conservatives, out of those 7 nominations ... we’ve got 5 victories.
Fred Thompson (my bet for the nominee) is plenty conservative, with significant broad appeal and certain electability. Romney wouldn’t be terrible either, and Giuliani has some appeal - but Thompson’s still my bet.
(4) If Ron Paul is your guy, which I suspect he is ... a conservative he is not. Fred Thompson is a mainstream conservative with HUGE appeal to conservatives, as well as some appeal to independants. Romney and Giuliani each have similar broad appeal - though I think Thompson would have FAR more appeal to the base.
Ron Paul doesn’t even appeal to most of the CONSERVATIVES on THIS board. His outlandish views on foreign affairs, national defense and homeland security are more in line with Dennis Kucinich than Ronald Reagan. His ridiculous statements on 9/11 specifically, and race relations generally, make him an entirely useless candidate. He will NOT get my vote (under any circumstances), and will likely not get the vote of most conservatives here.
If he were truly conservative ... he’d have more support from true conservatives.
H
” If they go ahead and nominate someone who isn’t strong on the Bill of Rights and smaller, less intrusive government, that candidate does not receive my vote. “
So am I correct that you would not vote AGAINST the opposition who may be strongly against the Bill of Rights and for more intrusive governemnt ... thereby making them one vote closer to being elected ?
I will not vote for anyone who is not strong on the Bill of Rights. If the Republicans run someone who is a gun grabber, that candidate will not get my vote.
“If the Republicans run someone who is a gun grabber, that candidate will not get my vote.”
That it ? When the opposition puts up someone who will grab your gun AND surrender in Iraq AND pack the Supreme Court with raging Liberals, that’s not a problem for you ?
Folding your arms and sitting back is not an option in my opinion ... I may not get everything I want, but I’m damned sure not going to let them get everything they want.
As Rush is fond of saying, you’re never going to get a candidate who agrees with you on everything.
To expect one is remarkably myopic.
Problem is, we haven’t had a really good one since Reagan, and we are, as a base, incredibly hungry for conservative inspiration. The logical flaw we sometimes embrace is that, in order to be inspiring to conservatives, a candidate must be perfectly conservative. Likewise, I don’t think we currently have a candidate who is both inspiring and perfectly conservative - and that goes for the Fredheads, too.
I think I’d prefer the inspirational leader at this point, who can rally the support of the American people in doing the 80% that he agrees with me on, than a perfectly conservative leader who can’t get the support required to accomplish anything.
~”As far as I know, Christ is not running in this election.”~
There’s always the write-in candidate.
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.