Posted on 12/09/2007 5:12:49 PM PST by jveritas
Hillary is Fidel and Obama is Che.
I’d rather not be forced to pick a thug, and instead send a message to posterity that I opposed tyranny.
Saddam got 97% of the vote, as does Fidel, and do the Republicrats.
Yes
I'm glad to hear that.
Choosing Ron Paul is really a no brainer against Hillary though.
“What if Hillary were a Repub? Would ya vote for her?”
Well yeah, but that would be different. Everybody knows that a socialist with an R after their name is superior in every way to a socialist with a D after their name. Beside, she’s electable. Plus this is the most important election in the history of elections, just like the last election, and the one before that. We need to vote who can win, not who has principals, then next time we can vote for our principals. You know what else, the time to vote principals is in the primary, that’s why it’s important to start pushing Rudy right up front because he can win. Just hold your nose and vote R one last time, and next time we’ll put up honest conservative candidates. I promise, this time we really mean it. sarcasm off.
The problem is that voting for Rudy, or Huckabee or McCain would be every bit as likely to send the Nation over the cliff described above as voting for the Democrat or staying home.
Essentially, your saying that "there is no difference between the parties"; that is pure sophistry.
Self destruct like the idiots over on DUhhhhhhh.
I will support the Repubican nominee but I am not thrilled by any of them to tell the truth. Thompson and Huckabee definitely don’t do it for me, but if either of them is the nominee, they will have my vote.
Please read these articles:
Why parole a monster like Green(Another Rapist Killer Gets Clemency from Huck) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937215/posts
Huckabee admits immigration plan has revolving door (amnesty or “guest” workers) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1937190/posts
Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1936099/posts
DCPatriot, I would vote for the Huckleberry over the Marxists, but how can any conservative be enthusiastic for a man who pushed for in-state tuition rates for illegals, accusing an opponent of not drinking the right kind of “Jesus juice”?
Now, he calls for an “overarching strategy” for AIDS, a “partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide *necessary* financing and a realistic path toward our goals”. Your standard boilerplate policy wonk rubbish.
The more I hear, the less I like this clown. Blessings, Bob
If you really want to torture yourself, then lets all meet at my place on Nov. 6 and drink tanqueray martinis and eat potato chips till we all pass out.
That way, whoever is on the GOP ballot on Nov 7 won't seem to be as bad as we will be feeling.......if you don't like potato chips then I'll also provide pistachio nuts.
Just one word has put the GOP in this predicament.
MACACA!
HOW true of so many here.....
Disagree.
You have a right to vote. But you also have a duty to vote.
Thousands of Americans have died to guarantee free elections. Exercise your duty...and your right.
There is no case to be made for the proposition that any of those three would damage America significantly less as President than Hillary Clinton. Republicans would be responsible for any of them in a way they would not be responsible for Hillary. If the country is intent on going to Hell in a handbasket, so be it. But I won’t promote the decline and you shouldn’t either.
I won't punish a candidate over a decision made by his judicial appointments.
Otherwise, President Reagan, my hero, would be diminished.
Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, whatever. No...I'll discount all this tabloid, gotcha crap.
As far as the Arkansas government, he beat the hell out of the Clinton machine didn't he? Which means he's major league.
As for Giuliani, he has indeed stated how he would deal with Iran. In the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs, he wrote:
"The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan's actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík in 1986: he was open to the possibility of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere. The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate -- whether ally or adversary -- must know that America has other options. The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure."
There are limits to how we can deal with Iran due to the necessity of keeping the Saudi royal family in power, yet Giuliani has shown that he will take a more direct approach. Hillary's approach is far to naive and rests on Iran simply agreeing to play nice, which goes against the very nature of how nation states act. Hillary is the one that is clueless, not Giuliani.
Obama could be described as naive, but it wouldn’t matter a bit. The President is not a one man band. We can only be as tough as our foreign policy establishment lets us be, as GWB has learned to his cost. Only a powerfully counter-cultural President, like RR, could deflect our policy more than a fraction and neither Giuliani nor Clinton is counter-cultural in the least.
In an election between Rudy and Hillary I have no dog in the fight. I see no grounds for choice and consequently I won’t make one. The suggestion that our foreign policy will be more muscular with Rudy at the helm is utterly unsupported by the evidence so it does nothing to sway me in Rudy’s direction.
Notice that, in the passage you cite, Rudy doesn’t call for undermining the Iranian regime, only for making it clear the we can if we get really mad. After Iran has waged war against us for 28 years, that is pretty weak beer. For every one of those 28 years gasbag politicians have been saying that Iran has to understand that we can be a dangerous enemy, and yet the Mullahs are still in place unscathed. The Mullahs have long since stopped attaching any meaning to the empty words and so have I.
If the Republican Party is foolish enough to nominate Rudy I will at least have the satisfaction of watching somebody I despise lose. Cold comfort but better than nothing.
Although many Freepers disagree, I wouldn’t put Rudy in the same category as the Dims!
I’ll vote for whatever Pub. I hate the Dems much, much worse.
Right, because a clear call to undermine the Iranian regime no matter what would be destabilizing to our Saudi allies. We have to be careful in dealing with the Iranians that our actions do not lead to encouraging radicals in Saudi Arabia, leading to a collapse of the royal family. With our ongoing operations in Iraq we simply do not have the manpower to take over Iran as well. Yes, we need to keep the nuclear option on the table as far as ensuring Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, due to the shifting of regional power that would occur. Giuliani has shown no intention of doing otherwise. The Democrats, not as much.
As far as completely changing our foreign policy, I see no need to. Bush has done a good job on foreign policy, even if it does somewhat stray from realism into idealism as far as spreading democracy is concerned. Giuliani approach, as he has outlined, recognizes the reality of the international scene.
As far a Hillary is concerned, read her policy outlines. Or read any other Democrat's policy outlines. They are simply too naive and operate under the failed assumption that if only we are nice our enemies will respond in kind. This is a dangerous view and would do irreparable harm to our national interest.
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.