Bob Haus
Posted on 09/19/2007 1:31:34 AM PDT by iowamark
Bob Haus
Glad to hear somebody posing the question. We all know what the answer is if we wish to be the majority party.
Iowa Executive Director: Republicans Can't Be 'Democrat-Lite'Maybe he should have told that to Chuck.
[snip]
going on to manage the 1992 re-election campaign of U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R).
I agree with the man in principle but I still believe we must back whomever the Party nominates and fight hard for the WH. It is simply not the time in our history to sacrifice the entire nation and perhaps the world on an issue of principle.
If we don’t stand for those Conservative principles, we’ll be nothing but a pale imitation of the competition. Nominate Rudy McRomney and we will deserve to lose.
Every credible poster here knows that full well... RINO's are the 'weak-sisters' of the party.
Anyone who claims McCain or Rudy are no better then fatso are being totally disingenuous.
Winning with a RINO isn’t much of a win. If national security is the preeminent issue, you definitely won’t want to go with the likes of Rudy or McCain. Since neither consider the illegal invasion to be a big problem (or in Rudy’s case, believes it ‘isn’t really a crime’), I consider that a huge problem. And if politicians think the invasion isn’t part of nat’l security, they are sadly mistaken. We need real wins with candidates that will do the right thing, not short-term pyrrhic victories that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
It’s just we have to battle the in-credible ones that think it is fully acceptable.
A MAN COMFORTABLE IN HIS OWN SKIN!
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
“I’m not sure you understand me. I want to win FIRST. Putting a man you claim is not as strong on “principles”as you would like does not mean the end of the Party.”
Oh, but it did for the Whigs who also couldn’t quite figure out what they stood for.
Nominate a liberal, pro-abort, gay-pride marching, gun grabber OR a stealth liberal posing as a conservative former one-term governor of the most liberal state in the nation and you have a recipe for sure electoral defeat and a Whig-like death of the Party
By national security I mean the WOT. Show me where RG is on the record for being for open borders or for being AGAINST stemming the flow of illegals.
Then show me how fatso Clinton is a better alternative.
I disagree. Let’s leave it at that. Your comparing this point in our history with 200+ years ago makes further debate meaningless.
Who is saying Hillary is a better alternative ? Rudy already stated last week he doesn’t believe being an illegal should be a crime... now that’s criminal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070913/NATION/109130098/1001
Actually, the Whig comparison is very apt. That party fell apart around 1854 when it refused to stand together on principles. One group within it was defiantly anti-slavery (Conscience) and the other didn’t want to touch social issues and wanted to stick to economics (the Cottons). Sound familiar ?
The GOP goes RINO, and it will end up just like the Whigs. As dead as can be. That’s already happened in the northeast, parts of the midwest, and the west coast.
Now is not then. We weren’t then as we are now faced with the end of our existence as we know it. Given the great disparity between the Parties in the area of national defense, the ONLY thing important NOW is that a liberal be kept OUT of the WH
“200+ years ago?”
How about 150 as in 1856?
History’s a great teacher if you don’t ignore its lessons.
Political parties who turn to squishes on fundamental core principals are destined for the ash heap of history.
In this case the Right-to Life plank has been in the party platform since 1980. Nominating a full-throated Roe supporter, Giuliani, will be a direct repudiation of that platform that’s existed through 6 presidential elections and will invariably cause the social conservatives, including me, to bolt the party just as anti-slavery Whigs did from their party in 1856.
Some things are too fundamental to wave off.
I believe in the right to life. I also believe in my life. The right to life principle means nothing when the savages get here and heads begin to roll.
“I believe in the right to life. I also believe in my life. The right to life principle means nothing when the savages get here and heads begin to roll.”
Then you would be better served backing McCain or Thompson who both are fully committed to winning the War on Islamofascism(and both having superior national security credentials to Rudy)while being long-term pro-lifers.
You don’t have to give up any principles at all.
It’s a laughably specious argument Giuliani supporters use that it’s either him or Hillary when in reality if it’s he that gets the nomination, Hillary is inevitible as literally MILLIONS of dispirited Conservatives stay home.
A choice between Rudy and Hillary is no choice at all.
Oh, my goodness. Sir, you really need to review some history. We most assuredly were faced with the disintegration of the United States in the 1850s. Two openly hostile groups, north and south, with differing ideas of what was right and what was wrong. Again, does that not sound familiar ?
"Given the great disparity between the Parties in the area of national defense, the ONLY thing important NOW is that a liberal be kept OUT of the WH"
Oh, I agree. But the liberals aren't exclusively in the Dem party. It's important we keep both the rodents and the RINOs as far away from the WH as possible.
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.