Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)
Rasmussen Reports ^ | 10-4-07 | Rasmussen Reports

Posted on 10/04/2007 9:38:23 AM PDT by TitansAFC

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550551-586 next last
To: finnman69

If GOP nominates Guiliani, don’t waste your vote, vote your principles VOTE THIRD. It’s the only way your vote will be counted. Don’t be part of a RINO ‘mandate’. Abort RINOs, return the ELEPHANT if not 2008 then 2012.


451 posted on 10/05/2007 7:42:29 AM PDT by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

So because of the purists,we get a generation of real socialist pacifist Dems running the Congress, the Executive, and far worse, SCOTUS. All because, we just cannot live with our guy being left of center who has told the world, he wants to support Scalia and Thomas like jurists who in the long run have the only power to deal with abortion. OK, so lose. Lose for a generation and wonder why the nation goes even more secular, more Third World than if we had a Rudy, Mitt vis a vis a Clintonista Presidency for 8 years. Cutting off our noses to be HOLY? And doing this will not help cut abortions , it will indeed solidify the abortion Dem caucus for a generation or more. Hillary will make mincemeat out of Fred or whoever the Lamb to slaugter we finally send up. And worse, the Congress will be even more liberal Dem. What political geniuses !


452 posted on 10/05/2007 8:03:58 AM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic
-—”So because of the purists,we get a generation of real socialist pacifist Dems running the Congress”-—

Possibly. The GOP purists are constantly trying to rid the party of its Social/Cultural/Morel/Gun issues in pursuit of a more Rokefeller-eques GOP. They have been purists for years, and gave us Ford, Dole, and possibly Rudy911.

But we’re fighting the purists to avoid a Dem Presidency - the inevitable result of forcing Rudy911 down the throats of Conservatives who find him an anathema and then demanding that they abandon all values they hold dear in favor of the only value the Rudophiles seem to have: stopping Clinton.

But those Rudophiles who keep complaining that Freepers are exaggerating Rudy911’s flaws (read: telling the turth) need to stop doing the same about America and Clinton. There is no indication that Hitlery would be a pacifist - she is taking heat from her own party for not being one even during the primaries. And America would survive four years of her - though the Conservative movement would not survive four years of a Rudy911-led GOP.

And stop with the SCOTUS nominees bullcrap. Nobody here is buying the Extreme Primary Makeover that Rudy911 worshipers are trying to sell us on judges. He holds the right to Abortion more sacred than the Holy Sacrament of Communion - he's never, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to nominate a judge who would even CONSIDER overturning Roe. There is no debating that without flagrant lying.

453 posted on 10/05/2007 8:20:33 AM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Since FDR, this country has been getting progressively more socialistic. One party moves this process much faster than the other. Ideally we reverse this trend, but I don’t see this happening (by who and how will they get elected?) so I choose the slower path rather than the fast track. Withholding my vote or voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning is a vote for the fast track toward more socialism. Find a third party candidate who is a true conservative with a real chance of winning, and you have my vote. Or we change into a parliamentary system where a conservative party can gather enough votes to influence the ruling government.
454 posted on 10/05/2007 8:48:53 AM PDT by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge
I think you are really rather pompous.

You've been both that, and thrice rude now. And no, I never slandered you. As your responses indicate, there is valid reason for questioning you.

Who do you seriously think has a chance of beating Hillary Tom Tancredo?

Nope. His demeanor is harsh, and he conveys being ill-at-ease at the podium.

Mike Huckaby? [Sic]

Nope. Although he might actually be able to win, he is a likeable politician (albeit as noted by Cato giving him a "D" lifetime grade, he spends like a drunken sailor), the country would likely find another Arkansan one too many.

... or perhaps Alan Keyes.

No. I supported him before in 2000. And he is still among the most true on the key issues. BUT. He has been flaky on some issues he didn't need to be, and shown way too much campaign management weakness (displayed over and over now, ...Alan couldn't even beat Obama)...and the biggest reason for this was his Achilles Heel: The total inability to bite his tongue.

Sometimes silence is the best answer...Alan has never learned this.

I personally like Duncan Hunter the best. He appears to be our best champion. The most solid track record of anti-communism I have seen in the House. He has the clearest and most succinct message...to the point of bluntness. He has been the best thinker we have in the field of national security. His message resonates. And his ability to successfully and winningly campaign in a jerry-mandered district with 70% Democrats proves he is an able messenger candidate himself.

The issue is his name recognition and the limited opportunities for making up ground on that with so many "Teddy-Kennedy-Wing" phoneys in the way. They weren't up on that stage by accident, no matter how insane their candidacies were. E.g., Tommy Thompson?? Clearly one of Bush's many plants to confuse the Base.

So what are we going to do about it? We need to get very busy.

Do you honestly think that a third party could win?

Of course not.

I am opposed to third parties. I believe we need to recapture the Republican Party. And for the Kool-Aid drinkers who are defending the "process" we need them to come to Jesus, and stop living in denial. Admit that the Party machinery has already been lost and needs recapturing. We need to EVICT ALL LIBERALS from any positions of authority or candidacy within the party.

THEY REPRESENT NO LEADERSHIP WORTHY OF THE NAME. HOUSE-CLEAN. NO BIG TENT. No more creepy "New Tone". No more sinister "Diversity" which trumps Reason and Merit.

I have said over and over again that the way to accomplish this is to establish a "Party, within the Party" which has its own center-of-gravity, and which by virtue of its purity on the platform issues, would be able to withstand efforts to undermine or subvert it within the GOP.

It's called the Republican Assembly Movement.

I urge all to join in it.

National Federation of Republican Assemblies,

THE REPUBLICAN WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Has it ever done anything other than give us, hmm, let’s see Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? No, I will not support a third party candidate.

Well, Good. You should be a member of the NFRA, then.

And by the way I consider it a supreme insult that you sneeringly question whether or not I maintain my beliefs.

You have been the one sneering, and smearing, attacking those who are simply saying "enough already", "DUMP RUDY."

I have not done that to anyone-

Wrong. You did right here, imputing that I am for splitting off from the Party, when I am not, but I won't belabor your continued misrepresentation, pomposity, extreme rudeness, etc...

I simply disagree with your assessment of the best strategy. But you choose to slander me.

Wrong. You are projecting your own suspicions on those who won't cavalierly drink the Kool-Aid.

Save your effort, I will not reply to you again.

Well, if that's the way you want it!

Somehow, unless you apologize, I think you would just continue in the same defamatory refrain anyways, if you did reply. And continue to misrepresent what I am proposing ... the pre-emptive Dumping of Rudy.


455 posted on 10/05/2007 8:54:34 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

Excellent point of attack.

However, and unfortunately, it does not cure the entitlement mentality upon which the freebies is based. This is an individual heart issue.

Certainly we need to groom and support more conservative broadcasters to educate the sheep, as Rush does.

My thinking relates to a congress that can run interference on billary.

I would support the ads that you suggest. Our members and the intellect they bring have put major dents in the left agenda in the past.

If you pick up such a crusade, or somebody begins such an ad campaign, let me know...check is on the way.


456 posted on 10/05/2007 9:02:37 AM PDT by woollyone (whyquit.com ...if you think you can't quit, you're simply not informed yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Look at the division and infighting Giuliani is already causing, and he isn’t yet the nominee.


457 posted on 10/05/2007 9:15:17 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (Mitt Romney '08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
"If the Republicans abandon the pro-life position -- which they will be doing if Giuliani is elected -- the pro-life movement is essentially dead in both parties."

Actually ALL social issues would be dead in both parties. Choosing between Hillary and Rudy would be a horrific choice. Conservatives must band behind one conservative candidate, or that choice will be reality.

458 posted on 10/05/2007 9:20:57 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (Mitt Romney '08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

ditto


459 posted on 10/05/2007 9:45:04 AM PDT by davidlachnicht ("IF WE'RE ALL TO BE TARGETS, THEN WE ALL MUST BE SOLDIERS.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
"I rather see Hillary in office than Giuliani. She would do less damage to conservatism."

That's like saying...
'my wife is unattractive, so I'm going have an affair with a woman twice as ugly.'

460 posted on 10/05/2007 9:49:34 AM PDT by davidlachnicht ("IF WE'RE ALL TO BE TARGETS, THEN WE ALL MUST BE SOLDIERS.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
If GOP nominates Guiliani, don’t waste your vote, vote your principles VOTE THIRD. It’s the only way your vote will be counted.

Yes, your vote will then be counted among those that are so blinded by one single issue that they chose by default to elect Hillary instead.

461 posted on 10/05/2007 10:14:12 AM PDT by scarface367 (The problem is we have yet to find a cure for stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
I agree with you, we need Hillary as president because she’s a real socialist and the Republicans are closet socialists.
That’ll solve all our problems, that along with tax increases, the “fairness doctrine” to suppress the opposition, more of the same open borders nonsense and socialized medicine.

Then you’ll get that socialism you speak of.

462 posted on 10/05/2007 11:03:55 AM PDT by newnhdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic
Lose for a generation and wonder why the nation goes even more secular, more Third World than if we had a Rudy, Mitt vis a vis a Clintonista Presidency for 8 years.

By your line of thinking it is preferable to settle for a slow transition to socialism instead of a faster transition. That's tantamount to preferring a slow death instead of a faster death. The end result is the same, more socialism. Great solution!
463 posted on 10/05/2007 11:14:11 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge

Stop ingesting the stuff being fed to you by the elite media, right or left. Try doing some thinking for yourself if you have the capability. If not, it’s a pity, but not surprising.


464 posted on 10/05/2007 11:50:43 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: scarface367

Evil is evil.


465 posted on 10/05/2007 11:51:44 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: penowa

Yes, but this is reality. In many cases you have no choice but to choose from the lessor of two evils. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away.


466 posted on 10/05/2007 12:03:54 PM PDT by scarface367 (The problem is we have yet to find a cure for stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

call me dense, if you dont support the nominee you in effect elect the beast, that is the definition of dense. I don’t necessarily like Rudy, but he has to be better than the hildabeast. We know what it was like under one clintoon administration, the beast will be worse. I will not vote for hillary, but a vote for a third party is the samething.


467 posted on 10/05/2007 12:18:24 PM PDT by vin-one (REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: scarface367; penowa
In many cases you have no choice but to choose from the lessor of two evils. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away.

Republicans have been ignoring for decades the fact appeasing evil has only resulted in more evil. Obviously the GOP prefers to appease evil instead of confronting it. For too long the GOP has been under the misconception ignoring evil makes it go away.
468 posted on 10/05/2007 12:24:48 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: vin-one; penowa
call me dense, if you dont support the nominee you in effect elect the beast, that is the definition of dense.

Many in the GOP fail to accept the obvious fact the party has been shifting away from its conservative base and towards socialism. The result is attempting to legitimize some socialism to prevent more socialism and castigating those seeking to prevent socialism. This type of slippery slope thinking has put the GOP in this dilemma. It is tantamount to choosing between a slow death and a faster death. Voting for Giuliani would be no better than voting for Clinton because they are both socialists!
469 posted on 10/05/2007 12:33:54 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: scarface367
In many cases you have no choice but to choose from the lessor of two evils.

Ah, but this is not such an occasion. We have plenty of time to eradicate Rudy from serious contention.

We do need to coalesce around one consistently conservative "umbrella" candidate. And now, while making it clear that the fracturing of the Base by the liberals means...Rudy has to go. That will drain away the logic from those who mindlessly support him based on a "winnability" thesis.

I will be blunt, to get there, we need to get the field dramatically narrowed. Without question Brownback should withdraw. Also obviously there as a favor to Bush. Huckabee should withdraw. Too liberal. Romney should face the financial realities. His campaign is held up by his checkbook alone. His credibility is seriously questioned. He should stop the bleeding, and withdraw and throw his support to the guy whose views he has tried to echo. We know who that is. We also know who else needs to go. Tancredo. He also needs to stop splitting the border enforcement consensus, and throw his support to Hunter, and then we have a four-way contest still, between him, Giuliani, McCain (who will NEVER withdraw), and Ron Paul...who will also obviously be there to the end.

We may well be looking at a brokered Convention here in St. Paul, but I frankly feel that Hunter would do quite well based on his history and solid positions, he will appeal to enough delegates to break the slates.

470 posted on 10/05/2007 12:39:44 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

so, you in effect put the beast in office. not just a socialist, worse. Rudy might be considered by many on this forum as a socialist, but he will not destroy this country as fast as the Hildabeast will. At least with Rudy after four or eight years we may be able to save the U.S. with the Hildabeast it would in my view be questionable.


471 posted on 10/05/2007 1:14:55 PM PDT by vin-one (REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Voting for Giuliani would be no better than voting for Clinton because they are both socialists!

Your perspecitve is mistaken.

Do you want national health care - socialized medicine? That's Hillary's prime goal once in the W.H. With democrat majorities in the House and Senate vitually a given, and Hillary in the house, we may get to wait 3 months or more for critical surgery.

472 posted on 10/05/2007 1:27:56 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: davidlachnicht
That's like saying... 'my wife is unattractive, so I'm going have an affair with a woman twice as ugly.'

No, it's like saying I'd rather be alone than with either one.

473 posted on 10/05/2007 4:29:04 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
Rudy might be considered by many on this forum as a socialist, but he will not destroy this country as fast as the Hildabeast will

Oh I see! It's better to die a slow death than a quick death. No wonder why the Democrats regained control of Congress and the GOP is dysfunctional.
474 posted on 10/05/2007 4:33:29 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
...third party candidates on either side of the political spectrum could play a significant role by peeling away one or two percentage points of the vote.

A vote for a third party candidate is like throwing it away.

I don't care who the Republican nominee is...he will get my vote.

475 posted on 10/05/2007 4:39:43 PM PDT by O6ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: O6ret
A vote for a third party candidate is like throwing it away.

The GOP has shifted so far to the left that its ideology is basically the same as the socialist Democrats. They are essentially one party. An alternative candidate would represent the second party.

I don't care who the Republican nominee is...he will get my vote.

That line of thinking caused the GOP to lose control of Congress and split the GOP. Some members are so hung up on party titles they can't accept the fact the party has adopted socialism. Voting for a GOP socialist over a Democrat socialist will still result in a socialist in the White House.
476 posted on 10/05/2007 5:15:22 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: vin-one

“I don’t necessarily like Rudy, but he has to be better than the hildabeast.”

He isn’t, and voting for him, even against Hillary, is unacceptable to 27% of the base. On the things that matter, to moral conservatives, there is NO difference between the two. Actually, Rudy scares me more that Hillary.


477 posted on 10/05/2007 6:23:33 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: penowa
The old ad hominem, huh?
I notice that you ignored the content of my post in favor of proffering silly platitudes and sounding like a pompous blow hard
Thanks for your inspiring advice.
478 posted on 10/05/2007 8:19:17 PM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; LdSentinal; ExTexasRedhead; MassachusettsGOP; CedarDave; AuH2ORepublican; ...

This sucks, as I admire Rudy’s accomplishments. But we have to face reality, so supporting him in the primary is unwise.

I’ve concluded that Fred Thompson is the best choice for President. But Giuliani would be a great choice for running mate, as he would bring great strengt in the northeastern states.


479 posted on 10/06/2007 10:36:28 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued (You can't be serious about national security unless you're serious about border security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #480 Removed by Moderator

Comment #481 Removed by Moderator

To: 3AngelaD

Inviting Decorators in before Hillary and her HINO take the White House and invite the Dictators in. Look for expensive tax-payer funded State Dinners to honor the likes of Hugo Chavez, Ahmahdinejad, and Raoul Castro.

If Rudy is the best candidate who can keep Her Heinous, Queen Hillary from claiming her throne, so be it.





Stop the insanity now!


482 posted on 10/06/2007 3:03:26 PM PDT by Cincinna (HILLARY & HER HINO :: Keep the Arkansas Grifters out of the White house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Phatboy
Here is a great resource for looking up vote info:

1980 Presidential Election Results

You can mouse over the states to see the state totals. The link is to the 1980 election, but they have all the elections in U.S. history.

483 posted on 10/06/2007 4:11:35 PM PDT by B Knotts (Tancredo '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Rudy and his murdering bitches of Planned Parenthood can go straight to hell as far as I’m concerned. And they can take Hillary with them..


484 posted on 10/06/2007 4:18:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
It’s more of a prevent defense until the next election when you will have the opportunity to elect someone more to your liking.

Seems like I heard this song before. Since I've been old enough to exercise my right to vote, my choices have been: Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush. So we can discount the incomparable President Reagan. 2008 may well end up being more of the same.

The only thing I have to show for 24 years of compromise was the Contract for America. So you'll excuse me if I resist signing up for another round.

485 posted on 10/06/2007 6:17:00 PM PDT by Doohickey (Giuliani: Brokeback Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge
"I notice that you ignored the content of my post..."

Had there been any content to your vapid post, I would have addressed it.

"Thanks for your inspiring advice."

You're more than welcome, although I'm certain that it's wasted on you.

486 posted on 10/06/2007 7:00:42 PM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: penowa
Well, let’s put our cards on the table.
I have raised two children who are at one of the most difficult universities in the nation. The oldest heads to law school next year, the second will follow. Their goal is to argue the case that overturns Roe versus Wade.
I have also home schooled a child with a serious medical condition. No one knows it as she has been so determined that she can “ play ball” with anyone.
What have you got?
487 posted on 10/06/2007 10:13:45 PM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge
Happy to hear that your children are contributing to the excess attorney problem this country suffers from presently. /s

I graduated from a very prestigious law school long ago and am now retired from that tiresome profession. That was when women seldom applied and almost never were accepted into law schools. As a matter of fact, I was the only woman in my class.

Care to explain what any of that proves other than you were a stay-at-home mother and I was a professional woman? You seem to have a serious problem as per your most recent post. Let's make a deal: Since FR has no ignore button, I propose that I will pretend you do not exist should I see you posting anywhere, and I do hope you will have the courtesy to do the same for me.

488 posted on 10/07/2007 12:26:12 PM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: All

does anyone have verifiable proof about RonPauls links the hillary camp or guiliani camp?

It seems pretty clear we have candidates whose only function is to be a spoiler.


489 posted on 10/07/2007 12:48:25 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

then say hello to President Clinton,


490 posted on 10/08/2007 7:08:51 AM PDT by vin-one (REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Ummm, pro-life third party?

Is there such a thing?

Hard to fear something that doesn’t exist.


491 posted on 10/08/2007 7:11:04 AM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

No we lost because of people like you, who are a single issue voter, and don’t know when to plug their nose and do the right thing. Now we will have president Hildabeast, who will destroy the health care system in this country. Thanks, to people like you.


492 posted on 10/08/2007 7:11:59 AM PDT by vin-one (REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
No we lost because of people like you, who are a single issue voter, and don’t know when to plug their nose and do the right thing.

That's a big misconception on your part. I oppose Giuliani on a multitude of issues. Holding your nose is simply another catch phrase for settling and appeasing the socialist left. The popular line among many in the GOP is that "sometimes you need to accept the lesser of two evils". The irony is the socialist left never thinks this way and as a result they never sacrifice their principles while the GOP has done it consistently for years. Consequently sometimes sacrificing has become always. You need to stop pacifying socialists and take take a hard line Conservative stand by offering only staunch Conservative candidates instead of candidates such as Giuliani who are always seeking to relinquish conservative principles for the sake of trying to please everyone.
493 posted on 10/08/2007 7:37:46 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Did it ever occur to anyone that those behind all this third party talk and poll results are organizations like MediaMatters and individuals such as George Soros and others in the Hitlery campaign “war room”?
They remember Ross Perot and how he helped the great Clintoon to two terms. Why wait for a Ross Perot to come out of the woodwork when they can coax him out with a little bait and, if they’re successful, you can be sure that campaign contributions from surprise donors will suddenly appear to finance the third Party.
494 posted on 10/08/2007 7:56:35 AM PDT by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
Well, I hear a lot of Third Party talk in my circles, and those are Conservative Organizations.

Rudophiles are going to have to face the simple fact that the GOP will endure a split if they are successful in shoving him down our throats.

There are too many folks, like myself, who will work tirelessly to see to it we have a non-Liberal alternative in the General Election.

495 posted on 10/08/2007 9:25:23 AM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
Did it ever occur to anyone that those behind all this third party talk and poll results are organizations like MediaMatters and individuals such as George Soros and others in the Hitlery campaign “war room”?

Your statement is based on the false premise there are two distinct parties. The GOP has moved so far left over the years for the sake of compromise that it has aligned its political ideology with the socialist Democrats. They are essentially one party. An alternative party would be the second party.
496 posted on 10/08/2007 10:08:29 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

take your hard line conservative stand, and we will have Hildabeast as president. If Rudy gets the nomination which I doubt, he will not be as socialistic as the beast. the choice is clear since no 3rd party canidate stands a chance.


497 posted on 10/08/2007 10:13:53 AM PDT by vin-one (REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
take your hard line conservative stand, and we will have Hildabeast as president.

The GOP has made it easier for a socialist to be in the White House precisely because the party never takes a hard line conservative stand.

If Rudy gets the nomination which I doubt, he will not be as socialistic as the beast.

As socialistic? The fact that you are admitting that you would approve of someone who is a socialist to potentially become President is not only astounding but the very reason why the GOP is in disarray! You will only get a President who is a little more socialist than the last with each succeeding election. Before you realize it the person you approve in a future Presidential election will be as much a socialist as Clinton! Here's a novel idea. End the socialist creep now by having some backbone and supporting only Conservatives!
498 posted on 10/08/2007 10:29:05 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: Dudoight
“Here we go again. Conservative third party puts another Clinton in the White House.”

Why do people ignore the fact that the GOP has not nominated a pro-abortion candidate in most of our lifetimes. And us pro-lifers are the ones who are shown to be the ones out of the norm.

Whatever.

499 posted on 10/08/2007 10:33:48 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vin-one

FR hates the GOP, their concern of a split is feigned, most here no longer even fund them, and campaign against the Republican party daily.

The goal is a new Party to rise from the ashes and save us, after a few more terms of Bill and Hill.


500 posted on 10/08/2007 10:39:19 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550551-586 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson