Skip to comments.27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)
Posted on 10/04/2007 9:38:23 AM PDT by TitansAFC
click here to read article
I know its easier to live in a world of black and white than have to made a choice among less than perfect alternatives. Really I do. I prefer making the easy choices too.
In the bubble that is FR, a lot of folks don’t realize that exactly the same thing is going on over on the Dem side. We regard Hillary as a radical socialist, but (believe it or not) for many of them she’s way too conservative, pro-business, and pro-war. Yet, thus far, I haven’t heard any anti-war candidate talk seriously about mounting a third party challenge. They understand what is at stake. When we understand it, then we will deserve to win.
“I would rather put up with Hitlary for 4 years then rip the prolife plank out of the republican platform by electing Rino Rudy. IF he I nominated I am going thired party.”
Hydro, The spawn of Arlen Spector could be the nominee and the prolife plank will still remain. Split the Repub party and say goodbye to the 2nd Am., the military, maleness, and say hello to a further cultural infusion of homosexual acceptability, preferencial treatment, higher taxes, Jesse Jackson, the NEA, NOW, the acceleration of the feminization of our boys, Hollywood carte blanche...
What a biased comment!
Why not say, "Ultimately, of course, some Republicans would have to face the question of whether to
vote NOMINATE for Giuliani or AND help elect a Democrat."
We will get about the same with Rino Rudy.
abortion has and will kill many more Americans than terrorism has or will and thats alright with Giuliani.
The main question for the 2008 elections is whether or not the American people want to elect a socialist who will install a socialist government and implement socialist policies.
Proof there won’t be any third party candidate — Perot was a fluke and Bloomberg found no support. Bloomberg was Hillary Matters “Perot”, got to get the winning vote under 50% so a Democrat could win.
Of course not. I much prefer a Republican appointed Souter or Stevens like you apparently do. /s
Yes, its just you.
Reagan actually won in spite of REPUBLICAN John Anderson splitting the GOP. Peeling off all the liberal republican votes. Reagan won with conservatives. Republican and Democrat.
GWB won because Nader calved off enough of Gore's votes to make a difference in several key states.
LOL! Bogus. Try Buchanan's Independence Party and the other parties also again peeling votes from the GOP. W won in spite of that. With razor-thin margins in many middle states, winning or losing... the third parties cut both ways. Maybe not always equally, but your views are clearly revisionist and frankly devoid of merit. You must not have lived through the elections of the 70's and 80s and don't know what a struggle conservatism has had to gain ascendancy within the GOP...which has only been lost due to betrayal !
As for what you are imputing to me:
.exactly what you're planning on doing, in reverse, but neither do you see or are willing to admit it
Can't and won't admit what I am not DOING. I want a housecleaning of the GOP, to restore the Reagan Conservative majority...and oust every single CFR enemy of that coalition of nationalists.
I will not vote for Rudy whether there's a third party or not.
It's so close that he doesn't need to lose 14% of the vote to lose to Hillary. He needs to lose only about 2-3%. And he will lose that.
Look outside the box...... It will be Hillary if the GOP splits and votes on the pro-life issue as their main qualifier for who they pull the lever for.
I think the war on terror should be the main issue in the next election. If Hillary gets in, we may not survive as a nation.
Essentially correct, but I would replace that label "moderate" with the more accurate, LIBERAL. Bush was also definitely out-flanked on the conservative side of the ledger badly by Alan Keyes who dramatically outed both the other two. But due to his failed efforts at fund-raising he could not compete.
Wish it weren't that way. But that was the way it went down.
The Republicans need to win CA, and NY to win Presidential elections? Where did you come up with that?
Your many explanations of why these don't indicate conservative progress don't negate that.
Yes they do. I have barely BEGUN to list all the betrayals committed by this phoney.
“Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”
So I take it that you would have no problem sacrificing your principles? Or, maybe you don’t have any...
Listed them already in response to a comment that "nothing conservative" has been going on.
Read the thread.
It's just you. LOL! Don't get mad, I couldn't help it.