I thought this might be of interest.
Fred Thompson was endorsed by one pro-life group, but I guess that wasn’t good enough.
The premise is faulty. The ‘Reagan Coalition’ was torn up during Bush the Elder’s term, and that was two decades ago.
Suggsting its just now happening is denying the reality of the time since January of 1993.
As would a pro-life Socialist nominee.
The business cons and the Rockefeller Republicans that run the GOP have been seething for years at being forced to “pander to those hicks” that make up the social conservatives. This year their contempt got the better of them and they finally decided to diss them and try to ram a candidate down the social cons throats instead of having one lie and put on a show for them.
The social cons have gotten tired of it.
It is and it won’t stop until we elect a truly conservative President. One who cares about the country and it’s people.
We will be pulled down into hell if we continue to elect the left and that includes Republicans or whatever.
We need to ignore polls, endorcements; etc. and elect the person most representative of us and that is Duncan Hunter.
It won’t change until you do.
More and more it is looking like the Dems and the Repubs are trying to embrace too wide a spectrum of ideology within their ranks. We have often criticized the Dem’s attempt to put their arms around such a diverse coalition, noting how they take certain special interests for granted (i.e., blacks, Hispanics, labor, etc) in order to pursue single issue groups like gay/lesbian, feminists, eco-fanatics (Gore-rillas), etc.
I am afraid our criticisms are progressively more appropriate toward Republicans as well. We have three camps: 1) Social Libs/Fiscal cons (sometimes applied to true Libertarians), 2) Social cons/Fiscal Libs, and 3) Social cons/Fiscal cons. The platform of such a party is tough to broker. For years we have tauted Republicans are the party of ideas, whereas Dems couldn’t afford to tout an idea as it might offend someone. Thus they were the masters of mudslinging.
The Christian Right, of which I am one, seems split over the latter two categories, some being what Bush calls “compassionate conservatives” (like Huckabee), while others hold the line on spending, too. There is no clear platform they support when it comes to fiscal spending. Being few-issue driven, it is easy to take them for granted if Dems are much worse on those few issues.
If Repubs continue in this vein, they are following the path of Dems, albeit a much different platform, yet strategically the same mistake. At some point, moving in this direction, both parties will experience dramatic tension to split into third parties.
If that is the case, now is a critical time to engineer a winning strategy for a third party BEFORE the other party splits and dilutes its effectiveness. 3rd parties will attract those from the opposing major party dissatisfied with the direction their major party is going. That necessarily means the sacrificing of one’s own major party in the pursuit of developing something more worthwhile.
The question is what are the probabilities for each party splitting? To split a major party without a corresponding split in the opposing party ensuing is a major strategic error. Yet being the first split is a major advantage. Which is it?
GOP Loses Its Life
The article presupposes that Guiliani is our candidate. Even if true (god help us), the GOP won’t lose its life - only its soul...
The republicans think that we will vote for a republican just to stop Hillary or Obama. Wrong. None of the dopes current aspiring to the presidency will get my vote.
I’ll write-in “Mickey Mouse”
When did he write this article?? He better re-check his data.
I don't know why I bothered reading past that.