Posted on 01/14/2008 7:20:19 AM PST by jdm
You know, if we had a calm and peaceful world then the entire election would be about social issues and the economy. I'm basically with Huckabee on the social issues. Period. He's a HUGE nanny-stater himself, and his distancing of himself from that position and record is akin to McStain's claim that he's for strong controls over our borders - i.e. it is mere pandering for votes and a lie. He's also very soft on illegal immigration - as bad as McStain and Rudy.
However, the world is not so calm and peaceful. We have important issues here at home, to be sure, but NONE of them will result in the sudden death of hundreds of thousands or more of us in an instant. Foreign and defense affairs are critical, and on these issues Huckabee is simply a zero. Note that he's head and shoulders above any of the Dems, as they will positively do harm, but this is not the time to be electing a novice in those areas, no matter who he surrounds himself with. There is another Republican who is at least 95% as good as Huckabee on the social issues, and who also isn't a nanny-stater, soft on immigration or a novice on foreign/defense affairs: Fred Thompson.
Baloney.
I see a gulf between Thompson and McCain-Huckabee.
Romney is my last choice. I haven't figured out who is worse, Romney or Rudy, but I'll never vote for either of them so it doesn't matter.
God help us all!
Well, you do see a gulf still, it’s just when you look across the gulf, Romney’s not the first guy you see over on the other side. :-)
Oddly, it appears Rush Limbaugh has drawn a line, and he’s put Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani on one side, and McCain and Huckabee on the other side of the gulf.
It's more like a chasm. I could jump over the chasm to vote for McCain or Huckabee. Or, you know, throw a vote at them. Romney & Rudy are at the bottom of the fiery chasm making sweet love to Saddam and Satan (South Park). I ain't goin' there.
Why in the world would any so-called Conservative vote for John McCain?
Like it or, RCP has McCain ‘pulling away’. He now has doubled Giuliani’s numbers—which is incredible.
Maybe, though I hope not. A McCain-Hillary race (or, for that matter, a McCain-any Dem race) would clearly be a lose-lose proposition. However, one "lose" isn't always equal to every other "lose."
That choice would be akin to having to decide between amputating a finger and amputating a leg. Neither is exactly what you'd like to do when you wake up in the morning, but one of them WILL happen. Smart people will take the one that is less bad.
Look, I despise McCain as much as the next person, but realistically he's going to make our enemies fear us. ANY of the Dems will be busy negotiating how much to pay those same enemies to leave us alone, and all that we'll have done is to fund their purchases of weapons to be used against us later. He'll positively SUCK on immigration and basic rights, plus (imaginary) global warming and health care...but would the She-Beast be better? Puhleeze!
The fight between Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson and McCain is a family fight. Once one of them wins, everyone in the family should pull together to fight the common enemy. Once that enemy is vanquished, we can (and certainly will) resume our family squabble. Politics is the art of the possible - and NOTHING is possible for us if a guy with an "R" after his name loses in November.
Here's what everyone whose favored Republican loses in the nomination fight has to ask him/herself:
Who do you want picking Supreme Court Justices, any of the 5 Republicans or Hillary?
Who do you want running our foreign policy and the DoD, any of the 5 Republicans or Hillary?
Who do you want leading the Congress on the issue of taxes, any of the 5 Republicans or Hillary?
Who do you want to pick the Attorney General, who is in charge of BATFE, any of the 5 Republicans or Hillary?
Etc., etc. The point is clear - the choice in November is between someone who will give you maybe as little as 50% of what you want (policy-wise), vs. someone who will give you virtually NOTHING of what you want. CHOOSE!!! Oh, and not choosing is also a choice.
I learned my lesson after voting for someone other than Bush 41 in 1992. I did and still do despise that elitist SOB for a wide variety of reasons. However, not voting or voting for Perot in that election because he wasn't perfect gave us 8 years of the Washington Hillbillies, with the taking apart of our military, raising taxes, nearly getting full-blown socialized medicine, gun control laws galore, sales of sophisticated weapons to China, etc., etc. Plus, as an added bonus, now most kids don't think that a BJ is sex (or at least they justify it based on the actions of a certain President and "that woman."
Another 4 years of Bush 41 wouldn't have been that bad. Irritating and frustrating, yes, but not THAT bad.
Oh, yeah, and it also gave us Madame Shrillary, U.S. Senator and likely Dem Presidential nominee. Without the short-sighted actions of so many frustrated and angry Republican voters (me among them), Hillary would merely be the corrupt, nasty, fat-calved ex-wife of an unknown ex-governor of a rather inconsequential southern state.
No thanks, I'm not making the same mistake again. Family is family, however much they aggravate you. The Dems ain't family, and helping them to win by not backing up family is very short-sighted and stupid, IMHO and experience.
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.