Rasmussen Daily Poll (Romney takes 2nd place/16%)

Well, we disagree. I have yet to hear one explanation of why the conservatives lost in 2006 that makes sense. Certainly it isn't "the country wants more conservatives."

As to Rudy "hurting" the party, I have no doubt he would do a number of things with which I disagreed. So would Fred. So would Huckabee---but neither of them, IMHO, have a hope in hell of getting elected.

However, when I go back and say, "Despite all he's done wrong, would I have rather Algore won in 2000? Or Kerry in 2004?" the answer is, "Are you insane?" There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that a Pres. Guliani would be so far superior to ANY Democrat that it really isn't worth the discussion. If Algore were in office in 9/11, we'd still be getting hit here in the U.S.

Well, we disagree.

I have no problem with that. We are having a polite debate devoid of any name calling. It's actually pretty pleasant, considering this can be an emotional topic for some. I thank you for your gentlemanliness (or gentlewomanliness), if those are even words.

I have yet to hear one explanation of why the conservatives lost in 2006 that makes sense. Certainly it isn't "the country wants more conservatives."

Perhaps the country did want conservatives, but with a Republican-controlled WH and Senate shoving amnesty and massive spending down their throats, people were fed up. I believe I've read that a larger percentage of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus members were re-elected than the overall percentage. And RNC did back a lot of RINOs over conservatives in the primaries. That could account for some of the loss of the male vote (8%, I read) if part of the base stayed home or voted 3rd party, out of a lack of a real choice between a RINO and a Dem.

Another issue that is growing with each election is the dumbing down of the voters. With schools not bothering to do any educating these days, people are less able to analyze and understand complex issues. They take at face value what they hear on the news and from ads. The least intelligent will follow emotional appeals and disregard logic (thereby voting Dem). And our voters are getting more dumbed down with each graduating class.

As to Rudy "hurting" the party, I have no doubt he would do a number of things with which I disagreed. So would Fred. So would Huckabee---but neither of them, IMHO, have a hope in hell of getting elected.

You don't think Fred has a chance? Is that because he's dropping in the polls? How do you think Romney's chances are? (Not that I'm a supporter of his, but he has been in the top all along so far.) It is pretty early though, to be sure of who will get the nomination.

However, when I go back and say, "Despite all he's done wrong, would I have rather Algore won in 2000? Or Kerry in 2004?" the answer is, "Are you insane?"

LOL! This is true. We've hit a point to agree on!

But consider the long-term picture that will emerge if we keep electing the left-leaning Republican candidates because they are the lesser of two evils. So far all that has happened with this action is that the party keeps going MORE to the left. As do the Dems. The trend is not good and doesn't appear to be reversing. It looks as if TPTB think we're approving of their actions because the same types of candidates keep showing up.

So, my hypothesis is that to change the direction of the party, they need to quit being rewarded for bad behavior. I thought losing in '06 would teach them something, but it seems they need more lessons from the base. Of course, that's oversimplified because it IS the base that will vote in the primaries. And I'm at a loss why Guiliani is leading, since he matches the Democrat party platform much better than the Republican party platform.

I know my history and I am stunned about how far the campaign go pushed out. In the 90's going up to 2000 there was rarely a debate before 12 months out.

I personally think that in 2004 election cycle when the democrats thought they had a legit shot and a birthright to beat Bush that this changed. The democrats were doing debates (almost all about gay marraige) 18 months before! And the liberal MSM ate it up becuase they all think alike and could not wait to sponsor debates with Al Sharpton and Howard Dean.

Also too the 2004 election cycle the DNC moved up all their primaries, basically front loaded them, so that there would not have a lengthy primary fight and just coronate a winner. Dims believe that tough primaries make them lose elections, not their $hitty ideas. Because of the front loading process, advantage would go to to person with the most money, which people like Kerry.

Yeah, and I think both sides are terrified of a "Kerry" moment whereby a couple of minor states create a whirlwind for an inferior candidate. No system is going to prevent a bad candidate (not making a judgment here on the values of the candidate himself or herself, just the ability to run a competitive campaign). The caucus system gave us John Quincy Adams; the early Jacksonian system gave us Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan; the spoils system gave us Chester Arthur; the 20th century reforms gave us Warren Harding and Jimmy Carter.

I'm still trying to figure out if the Dems REALLY want Hillary or not. I know they want Bill, and probably think she's the only way they can get him. But I think they'd LOVE to nominate Obama, except he's so stupid and says such moronic things.

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.